Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BODMIN MOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 2 May.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Closed Circuit Television

Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to increase the number of CCTV schemes in operation. [25036]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): In March 1995, we distributed £5 million to 106 winners in our first CCTV challenge competition. Those schemes are now coming on stream. We are planning to spend a further £45 million over the next three years to promote the use of CCTV in crime prevention. We aim to fund 10,000 more cameras.

Mr. Banks: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the strong support in Southport for the introduction of closed circuit television cameras. Does he agree that, where CCTV has been introduced, there has been a clear reduction in crime? Is not that to be welcomed? Will he pursue the policy with the utmost vigour?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall certainly continue to pursue the policy. When closed circuit television was introduced in Workington in 1994, crime was reduced by 57 per cent. on the previous year, and there was a further reduction of 59 per cent. in 1995. There have been similar reductions across the country. In the words of the chief constable of Northumbria:
We are leading the world in closed circuit television technology".

Mr. Tony Banks: Before we all wildly applaud what the Home Secretary has just said, may I ask him whether he is aware that there are more electronic eyes—and that we are under more surveillance—in this country than in any other country on the planet, including all the eastern European countries? Are we not seeing the day of big brother? The fact that we have to have spies on every

building to try to limit crime marks 17 years of Conservative government, and is a condemnation of him and everything that he stands for.

Mr. Howard: There speaks the authentic voice of the Labour party. The country will know that, whereas Conservatives are working hard to protect the public through the use of technology and other ways, all those efforts are being met by the most antediluvian opposition of the hon. Gentleman and his party.

Mr. Carttiss: In the light of my right hon. and learned Friend's answer, is he aware that although a number of Labour-controlled Norfolk towns, including the city of Norwich, have CCTV, the Labour-controlled Great Yarmouth borough council has rejected the crime prevention measure? What does that say about the so-called policy of being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime that we hear so much from the Labour Front Bench?

Mr. Howard: It shows yet again that Labour cannot be trusted on crime. Not long ago, I had the privilege of visiting some of the CCTV schemes in Norfolk. They are very successful. It is a great pity that Great Yarmouth council is so blinkered that it is not prepared to follow the example of others in Norfolk.

Mr. Gapes: Will the Home Secretary support the bid of Labour Redbridge council for a CCTV scheme in the centre of Ilford, which is supported by the police and the local business community and would do wonders to cut crime and add to the thriving nature of many Labour-led businesses in our local authority?

Mr. Howard: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the most careful consideration will be given to the bid for funding for CCTV in his constituency. I further give him the undertaking that we shall not hold it against his constituency that his neighbour, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), has such old-fashioned and obstructive views on the subject.

Identity Cards

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many European countries have a domestic identity card. [25037]

Mr. Howard: Eleven of the 15 countries in the European Union have some form of identity card.

Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Is he aware that the vast majority of the British people want identity cards, not least to identify the thousands of illegal immigrants who are drawing benefit? Is he aware that, if the lot opposite ever came to power, inflation would soon be at 26.9 per cent., tax at 98 per cent. and we would need identity cards not to show that we are entitled to be here but to show that we are entitled to get out of here?

Mr. Howard: As usual, my hon. Friend put his point in a telling and inimitable way. Of course, his suggestion is right, not least because of the new tax on the family


through the withdrawal of family credit from families with 16 to 18-year-olds that is the latest weapon in the Labour party's tax armoury.

Mr. Henderson: The Home Secretary was correct that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) put his case in a telling way, which certainly cannot be said of the Government. Will he say whether he agrees with the Prime Minister when he said during last year's local election campaign that compulsory identity cards were necessary to combat crime, or will he own up to the fact that his officials have told him that a compulsory scheme would be too costly, ineffective and unpopular—even with the hon. Member's constituents in Welwyn Hatfield?

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman were to look at what was said by me and others, he would see that we said that we would consult on various versions of identity cards, ranging from the compulsory through the voluntary to none at all. We said that we would invite people's views on those options, as we have done, and that we would announce our decision in due course. That is exactly what we intend to do.

Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give careful consideration to identity cards with photographs, which would be most helpful? In my constituency, there is a serious problem of a young man's details having being given to the police on three occasions by a small gang. That young man has been dragged to court, yet he has not been identified as the culprit at the scene of the crime. Someone else is using his name. If tearaways driving around in the middle of the night had to produce an identity card with a photograph, that problem would be resolved.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her suggestion. She knows that I always take her suggestions particularly seriously. I shall certainly take what she has said fully into account in working up our proposals.

Robberies

Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many robberies were recorded by the police (a) in England and Wales and (b) in Humberside in (i) 1995 and (ii) 1979. [25038]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): The figures for England and Wales are 68, 407 and 12, 482. The corresponding figures for Humberside were 680 and 103.

Mr. Mitchell: As the Minister does not care to give us the percentage increases, my quick mental arithmetic gives them as 448 per cent. in England and Wales and 560 per cent. in Humberside. Given that robbery is the crime that most exacerbates the atmosphere of fear of crime, is not that amazing increase, which is continuing, a total condemnation of the Government's policy?

Mr. Maclean: Not at all, but it is typical of the hon. Gentleman to focus on robbery in Humberside, which has unfortunately been increasing. It is the duty of Humberside police to deal with robbery on their patch. I would have had more respect for the hon. Gentleman if

he had mentioned that, in the past two years, crime has fallen on Humberside by 12,000 offences, or that there are 4,000 fewer car crimes and 9,000 fewer burglaries. How did the people who get involved in robbery on Humberside start? Perhaps they started as shop thieves. They may have been encouraged by the fact that the Leader of the Opposition seems to think that stealing from shops is okay and merely putting a "treat in your pocket".

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is not robbery a crime of violence against the person? Have not crimes of violence against the person fallen nationwide over the past year, for the first time in 49 years?

Mr. Maclean: That is true; crimes of violence have fallen considerably in England and Wales for the first time in 49 years. Of course, the Labour party wants to pretend that crime was not invented until 1979, so I thought that I would look at the figures for 1975, 1976, 1978 and 1979. In those years in Humberside, violence increased by 23 per cent., violence against the person by 34 per cent., burglary by 6 per cent. and vehicle crime by 25 per cent.

Mr. Tony Banks: What about crime now?

Mr. Maclean: Crime rose under Labour Governments and, yes, it rose for some years under the Conservative Government, but it has been falling for the past three years—and Labour Members do not want to talk about that.

Recorded Crime

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage change there has been in the incidence of recorded crime since (a) 1994 and (h) 1979. [25040]

Mr. Howard: Between 1994 and 1995, recorded crime in England and Wales fell by 2.4 per cent. Between 1979 and 1995, there was an increase of 102 per cent.

Mr. Williams: Does the Home Secretary now accept that there is a good correlation between unemployment and the incidence of crime? Over the past three years, there has been a significant fall in unemployment and a small fall in the incidence of crime but, over the past 15 years, we have had unemployment rates of 10 to 15 per cent., with the despond, lack of self-esteem and hopelessness that that produces in people, and its corrosive effect in society. Is not that the root cause of the fact that crime has more than doubled since 1979?

Mr. Howard: The research carried out into the matter does not support the hon. Gentleman's thesis. Furthermore, this is an irrelevant argument, because I accept that we must do everything to bring down unemployment, which is a social evil in itself, irrespective of whether it has anything to do with crime. We have been extremely successful in reducing unemployment at a time when it has been increasing in most of the rest of Europe. Why does the hon. Gentleman not rejoice with me in the fact that, in Dyfed-Powys, in which his constituency lies, recorded crime over the past two years has fallen by no less than 22 per cent.—a decrease of 5,300 in recorded crimes since 1993?

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in the campaign to keep recorded crime


figures coming down, the possession of identity cards would be a big advantage to the police? The military and the reserve forces have identity cards, and so do Members of Parliament. Many people who work in companies have identity cards, too. Why should we not have identity cards for every member of the public, which would assist the police in their efforts to bring down crime?

Mr. Howard: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but he will doubtless be aware of the fact that the police do not favour a compulsory identity card. None the less, I shall take what he has said fully into account in working up my proposals.

Mr. Straw: What is there to rejoice about in a record which shows that, as the Home Secretary has confirmed, recorded crime has more than doubled over the past 16 years? Is he not aware that, as crime has doubled, the proportion of people convicted or cautioned for those crimes has fallen by more than half? Is that not the worst record of any British Government since the war—and, indeed, of any comparable Administration in any western country? Is it therefore any wonder that the British people have so comprehensively lost confidence in the Government's ability to keep communities safe from crime?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State pointed out, crime was rising before 1979. It has also been rising in other western European countries and in countries elsewhere in the developed world since that date. In the past three years, however, there has been the greatest fall in recorded crime since records began to be kept in the middle of the 19th century. That is a matter for some satisfaction, and we congratulate the police on their achievements.
However, there is much more to be done. That is why I have made further proposals. Why did the hon. Gentleman and his party oppose all the measures that we announced to improve our record further? Why does he oppose our sentencing proposals and the proposals to change the right to silence, which are having such a beneficial impact on crime? Why did he undermine the proposals to change the law on bail? Why does Labour have such an appalling record on crime?

Border Controls

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will raise at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers the issue of border controls. [25042]

Mr. Howard: I have no plans to raise the issue of border controls at the next meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that the removal of border controls would effectively establish a single European state without frontiers? What constitutional defences are available to us if the European Court determines—as some of us believe it will—that the declaration attached to the Single European Act does not have the status of European law?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend knows perfectly well—because we have had exchanges on this subject before—

that the Government have made it absolutely clear that they are firmly determined to maintain the United Kingdom's frontier controls. That is our position: we will maintain our frontier controls, as we have made clear on numerous occasions.

Prisons (Illegal Drug Use)

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the percentage of prisons that are free of illegal drug use. [25043]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Mandatory drug testing has been implemented in all prisons, on schedule, by 31 March. The data it will yield will provide, over time, a good indicator of the level and pattern of drug misuse in prisons. However, because the random testing programme involves the testing of only 10 per cent. of a prison's population every month, even when all the tests prove negative, it will still not be safe to claim that an entire prison is free of drug misuse.

Mr. Flynn: That is a disgraceful non-answer. I suggest that the Minister read my question again and the letter that I sent to her Department pointing out that, in my county of Gwent, in two cases, on two different days, convicted offenders were excused prison—which they most certainly would have had—for the serious offences that they had committed because the judge decided that, as ex-drug users, they would be exposed to more drug temptation in prison than they would be in the community. It seems, therefore, that drug users get a better chance of not going to gaol. In what percentage of prisons is drug use endemic? If the Minister does not know the answer, I can tell her what her right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State told me before—that drug use is endemic in 98 per cent. of gaols. Why is this the case after 17 years of Tory government?

Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman wanted an answer to that question, perhaps he should have asked it. The hon. Gentleman asked me:
what … percentage of prisons … are free of illegal drug use.
I have clearly explained to him that, even if all the random tests came out negative, it would be impossible to make the claim he asks me to make because all the other prisoners would not have been tested. However, it is well worth pointing out to him—as he referred to the figure for Welsh prisons—that, in the 14 tests carried out in Cardiff in February, there were no positive results. Perhaps he would like to congratulate the Government on that.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to congratulate the Prison Service on the wide range of initiatives that it has introduced to combat drugs—such as mandatory drug testing, additional searching provisions, closed visits and the increased use of dogs. Will the hon. Gentleman welcome those efforts and acknowledge that they are making a real impact on drug use in prisons? Will he preserve his scorn for those who try to get drugs into prisons, rather than use it on those who are doing their level best to combat drugs—and doing so very successfully?

Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that there can be absolutely no rehabilitation of offenders in


custody so long as they have access to drugs, so removing drugs from our prisons is the single most important priority that the Government could have in ensuring that people do not re-offend when they leave custody? In that respect, does my hon. Friend think that we can learn a great deal from the boot camps in the United States of America, which are no-drug zones? Will she ensure that similar detention centres in Britain are also no-drug zones?

Miss Widdecombe: I hope that, one day, we shall be able to ensure that there is no prison, whether for young offenders or for adult offenders, in which there are drugs, and I described the measures that we were undertaking to try to move towards that.
My hon. Friend is right; drugs in prisons are a major evil. That is why it is important not only to take measures against the supply of drugs, but to try to combat the demand. I therefore welcome the fact that 80 prisons now have detoxification units, that we have many programmes designed to tackle drugs behaviour and that we are using education, counselling and medical help in prisons to try to get prisoners out of the habit—which most of them have before they enter prison.

Ms Lynne: The Minister is aware that there is a serious drugs problem at Buckley Hall prison in Rochdale, and that many of those drugs are coming over the perimeter fence. That is one of the reasons why the perimeter fence is being strengthened at the moment. Is she aware, however, that on Tuesday 23 April, at 2 pm, four prisoners, using construction equipment left lying about by the contractors, escaped over the prison fence? Is it not about time that she listened to the views of the people of Rochdale and instigated a full public inquiry into the running of Buckley Hall prison by Group 4?

Miss Widdecombe: First, the hon. Lady says that there is a serious drugs problem at Buckley Hall. It is worth recording that, when the last series of tests was carried out, 19 prisoners were tested and only one was found positive. Although that is one too many, it is not indicative of what she describes as a serious problem.
Secondly, with respect to the hon. Lady's comments on Buckley Hall, I answered at great length in an Adjournment debate, and proved that she is taking a most unfair line, that she is insulting staff—many of whom are probably her constituents—and that it is high time that she recognised the aspects in which Buckley Hall performed better than its public service comparators.

Mr. Key: Can my hon. Friend confirm that there is no lack of determination on the part of the Government or the Prison Service to eliminate drugs from prisons? Can she confirm that the root problem is that, as a result of court decisions, personal contact between prisoners and visitors is now compulsory, and that internal body searches are not allowed unless a doctor is present and the prisoner consents, which means that, for all practical purposes, substances can be taken into prison and prison staff have no option but to allow those substances to be used?

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is right to identify visitors' contacts with prisoners as being an aspect of major concern. That is why there is now increased use

of monitoring by cameras at visiting time, why there is increased use of closed visits where prisoners are found to have obtained drugs, why there are strict search procedures and why dogs are often used at visiting times.
My hon. Friend is right to identify that. He is not right, however, to say that prison staff have no choice but to allow substances to be used. It might reassure my hon. Friend to know that there is a healthy record of detection and removal of substances and—perhaps most important of all—prosecution of guilty visitors.

Mr. George Howarth: Will the Minister give us an assurance that the mandatory drug testing scheme will be reviewed to discover what, if any, improvements may be made to it? Will she also give the House an assurance that the proposed cuts of 14.5 per cent. in real terms that are due to take place during the next three years will not affect the many effective, well-run drug rehabilitation programmes that are already going on in our prisons? Will she ensure that those programmes are protected? I am sure that the whole House agrees that it is important that people who are into taking drugs are helped to get out of them, especially when in prison.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman can of course have our reassurance that mandatory drug testing will be continued, that it will be kept under review so that, if improvements can be made, they will be made, and that we shall monitor carefully the results, especially when they have been up and running for long enough to allow us to perceive a steady pattern. I have pleasure in giving the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about resources. Currently, about £5.1 million is allocated to drug rehabilitation and about £5.3 million is allocated to mandatory drug testing.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the work being done by prison officers throughout the United Kingdom, and especially in my constituency of South Dorset, tackling the drug problem is good news for everyone concerned, not least the prisoners? Will she take further measures, if necessary, to ensure that we can search people going into prisons, and that we can prosecute them with the full force of the law so that we stop people involved in that type of trafficking, which has been going on for many years?

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have fairly stringent searching, and when we have reason to believe that there is something untoward we have very stringent searching. We can refuse access, and we can—and do—call in the police with a view to prosecution when we find visitors trying to pass substances of that sort. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall seek to improve those procedures and that we are thoroughly committed to them.

British Passports

Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the design of British passports. [25044]

The Parliamentary under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): The current new-style British passport, introduced from 1988, is in a common format that has been agreed throughout the European Union.
An internal review in 1995 found that the current design and security features provide adequate protection against fraud. but that is being examined again and consideration is being given to replacing the holder's photograph with a printed digitised image when the current printing equipment is replaced in 1998.

Mr. Soley: So when people renew their passports, they will, at the Minister's insistence, no longer be able to obtain a traditional British-style passport but must have what is called a "European Community passport". Is the Minister proud of that?

Mr. Kirkhope: I am somewhat surprised by the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The passport that is held by British nationals is quite clearly a British, not a European, passport. On its front cover, it bears this country's coat of arms and the clear and unequivocal statement that it is a passport of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we intend it to remain that way—but I am not so sure that Opposition Front Benchers, with their Euro-enthusiasm, could provide the same guarantee

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend is correct: the problem is not the design of the British passport, but designs on the British passport. Will my hon. Friend renew the fight to ensure that border controls and the sanctity of passports generally are upheld?

Mr. Kirkhope: I am sure that we can give that confirmation. However, the Opposition are apparently unable to do that. If we received more support from the Opposition in our determination in that regard, we would be in a much better position.

Private Security Industry

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for regulating the private security industry; and if he will make a statement. [25045]

Mr. Maclean: We are still considering the case for regulating the private security industry.

Mr. Mullin: Has the Minister noticed that Lowther Construction, a company based in his constituency, has been employing an armed robber as a security guard—or at least it was until he was arrested on charges of supplying heroin? When will the Minister overcome his obsession with deregulation and do what all sensible people of all political persuasions both in and outside the industry are begging him to do: start regulating the private security industry?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman and his party are very keen on regulation and more regulation, but they have not thought out the details and there is no blueprint for how it should be done.

Mr. Purchase: Get on with it.

Mr. Maclean: That is the Opposition's response to all regulation issues: they do not care about the details or the effect on criminal law or the industry; they would simply regulate and hope for the best.
The Home Affairs Committee has produced a very thoughtful report to which we are giving careful consideration. We have accepted many of its recommendations and we are working on the details of our White Paper on criminal record checks, which will address many of the problems in the industry. When we have formed our conclusions. we shall announce our proposals for the private security industry—whatever they may be.

Mr. Michael: Why does the Minister appear so unwilling to regulate the crooks? Does he realise that the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is not unique? What has the Minister to say about the experience of the police? For example, a police superintendent told me about a man with 23 pages of convictions on the police national computer who is running a private security firm. The police, the Labour party and the private security industry want statutory regulation of the industry. Why will not the Home Secretary bring in legislation to protect the public, instead of continuing to act as the villain's friend?

Mr. Maclean: It will not surprise the House to know that I anticipated that the hon. Gentleman might end with that jibe, so before coming to the House I looked up the Labour party's voting record—not on regulation, but on Bills to deal with people who have been convicted of crime. In 1988, Labour voted against the power to increase from two years to 10 the penalty for cruelty to children. Labour voted against penalties for hard drugs. Labour voted against the maximum penalty for taking a gun to crime. Labour voted against every prevention of terrorism Act until this year. Labour voted against many parts of the last criminal justice Bill and sabotaged others. We will produce our proposals for the private security industry in due course, but we will not take lessons from the Opposition when over the past 15 years they have voted against every measure that would have locked up more criminals.

Citizenship Applications

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to give reasons for refusing United Kingdom citizenship applications where the applicant has been lawfully resident in the United Kingdom for over 20 years, has no criminal record and has met all the duties and obligations which fall to be met by a person resident in the United Kingdom. [25046]

Mr. Kirkhope: No. Section 44(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 expressly relieves the Secretary of State from giving reasons in such cases where the decision is at his discretion

Mr. Prentice: Why will the Minister not give reasons for the refusal of British citizenship to the Fayed brothers,


as recommended in February by Mr. Justice Igor Judge, who said that not to do so gave the impression of secrecy and was unattractive, and who called on the Minister to think again? Is not the refusal of UK citizenship to the Fayed brothers, who have been in this country more than 20 years, a calculated act of political spite because the Fayed brothers blew the whistle on Ministers who enjoyed lavish hospitality at the Paris Ritz, allegedly for planting parliamentary questions? Is that not the reason for blackballing the Fayed brothers?

Mr. Kirkhope: Under schedule 1 to the 1981 Act, certain requirements must be met for approval to be given to citizenship. Some are objective matters and some are subjective, subject to discretion. Mr. Justice Judge's pronouncement, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, made it clear that the British Government have always acted lawfully in respect of the matters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The judge found as a matter of law that there was no obligation either to give reasons or to invite representations, and that the Home Office in no way acted unlawfully

Mr. Ashby: Having received a pretty shabby letter from Mohammed Al Fayed, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that he is not fit for British citizenship. People who are fit for British citizenship include children born in Germany of parents serving in the British forces. Why are such children subject to such an onerous burden of proof in obtaining a British passport?

Mr. Kirkhope: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I will be pleased to look into that matter and reply to him. I remind the House that we take British nationality extremely seriously. It is a very special status, not to be conferred in a flippant or easy manner—as suggested by the Labour party

Police Forces (Revenue Finance)

Mr. Benton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much he plans to increase the revenue finance for police forces in England and Wales in each of the next three years in order to increase by 5,000 the number of police officers. [25047]

Mr. Maclean: Police authorities will receive an extra £20 million this financial year, £60 million more in 1997–98 and £100 million more in 1998–99. That will enable them to recruit 5,000 additional police constables over that period

Mr. Benton: Is the Minister aware of the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), drawing attention to the increasing level of violence and use of firearms on Merseyside? Is he also aware that under the constraints imposed by the Government, Merseyside fire authority—this year, not in three years' time—will have to reduce its officer numbers by 130? How will the Merseyside authority cope with the increased levels of crime? Will the Minister put the elderly people and other vulnerable groups on Merseyside at ease with some statement of comfort, and will he agree to meet a delegation from the Merseyside police authority?

Mr. Maclean: People on Merseyside might be put more at ease if the authority did not waste hundreds of

thousands of pounds on leaflets claiming that its budget will be cut by £19 million when in fact it received an increase of £8 million or 5.1 per cent. this financial year. I would be more impressed by the hon. Gentleman if he quoted from the latest Audit Commission report which shows, among other things, that Merseyside has almost 50 per cent. more money per head of population to tackle crime than the average police force. As a result of all that extra money, Merseyside has 50 per cent. more bobbies available for ordinary duty than the average police force. I should be delighted to meet a delegation from Merseyside on any occasion to remind it of the success of that force in that regard.

Mr. Dunn: Is the Minister satisfied that the police establishment of the county of Kent is sufficient to deal with all the manifestations of the channel tunnel rail link, in view of the huge increase in traffic moving through the county from the north to the coast and from there to Europe?

Mr. Maclean: Yes, I am. We no longer set establishments, but in view of the generous funding that all forces, including Kent, have received and the success that Kent police have had in tackling all aspects of crime, I am satisfied that Kent's excellent chief constable will be able to deploy the resources that we have given him in the most effective way to tackle any problems arising from the channel tunnel and any other problems of crime in his county.

Mr. Barnes: When will sufficient resources be given to the police in Derbyshire so that they can secure the return of their certificate of competence? Why is that force still suffering as a result of a past policy of civilianisation when that policy is now recommended by the Home Office?

Mr. Maclean: I will tell the House what Derbyshire is suffering from: it is suffering from a legacy of Labour control in Derbyshire in the mid-1980s—from Bookbinder and hostile Labour councillors who hated the police and did everything to do them down. Derbyshire's success is improving because the Tory Government have given more money to Derbyshire than its Labour council in the 1980s took away from it. Derbyshire will get about 5 per cent. more this year. It has had generous capital funding and if Labour councillors in the past had shown some respect for their county force, it would not have its problems.

Sentencing Policy

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about sentencing policy for crimes of burglary, car theft and shoplifting. [25048]

Mr. Howard: I receive many representations about sentencing policy, including widespread support for the proposals set out in the White Paper, "Protecting the Public"

Mr. Nicholson: My right hon. and learned Friend will be pleased to learn that there is widespread support in my constituency for his proposals for greater certainty in


sentencing. Is he aware that businesses in my constituency which have suffered through burglary or shoplifting—not just the theft of a tea cake but the theft of hundreds of pounds' worth of household or DIY equipment—expect the courts to provide at least loss of liberty or custody, not just probation, for persistent offenders? Will my right hon. and learned Friend contrast that concern with the lightness with which the Leader of the Opposition recently treated such matters?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about sentencing. I am sure that he will have drawn the attention of his shopkeeping constituents to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has been going up and down the country making speeches which excuse shoplifters. The Leader of the Opposition will go down in history as the pilferer's friend.

Recorded Crime

Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the latest recorded crime figures. [25049]

Mr. Howard: Recorded crime in England and Wales fell by 2.4 per cent. in 1995 and by 8 per cent. in the three years to the end of 1995. That is the largest ever continuous fall in the number of annually recorded crimes. Those figures are a testament to the achievements of the police and local communities in helping to prevent crime.

Mr. Thompson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the stupendously good news in Norfolk with regard to recorded crime? Is he aware that recorded crime and burglaries have fallen during the past year in Norfolk, and that car theft has fallen by 14 per cent. during the past year in Norfolk? Will my right hon. and learned Friend pay tribute to the police and the crime prevention panel in Norfolk for that really good work, and will he say that there will be more resources for more police and more special constables in Norfolk in the coming year?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to pay tribute to the record of the police in Norfolk. Norfolk has had a 20 per cent. reduction in recorded crime during the past two years, with some 9,000 fewer victims—the biggest fall of any county. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Norfolk police on that achievement.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Corbett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April. [25066]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today

Mr. Corbett: Did the Prime Minister hear his Chancellor on the "Today" programme this morning

deriding the claim that economic and monetary union would necessarily mean the end of the nation state? Is that the Prime Minister's view, or will he be giving another shambolic free vote to his Cabinet?

The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not think that on matters of conscience it is right to have a free vote in the House. I understand that last night's debate was of a very high quality, as is frequently the case when we have a free vote in the House, and I believe that it was the right way to deal with the problem. With regard to the nation state, my right hon. and learned Friend is a strong supporter of it.

Dame Jill Knight: May I assure my right hon. Friend that the Government's announcement earlier this week on the abolition of anti-personnel mines has been widely welcomed both within and outside the House? Bearing it in mind that some 2,000 innocent people are killed or maimed every month as a result of those diabolical instruments, will my right hon. Friend please use his considerable influence to obtain their abolition worldwide?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have stated for a long time our aim to eliminate anti-personnel mines and we hope that through international agreement that aim can be achieved. I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will work for a total worldwide ban on anti-personnel mines

Mr. Blair: Does not the fact that four of the Prime Minister's Cabinet Ministers—[Interruption.] I am well aware why Conservative Members do not want to talk about this. Does not the fact that four Cabinet Ministers voted against the Prime Minister himself on a Bill from his own Lord Chancellor show the humiliating state to which his authority has been reduced?

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will recall what I said when I announced the Bill last November in the debate on the Queen's Speech. I made it clear at that time that this was a matter of personal conviction for all hon. Members and that I had no intention of riding roughshod over the convictions of any hon. Member, in the Government or beyond, on the matter. I said then that we would propose free votes on matters of conscience. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is right to have a free vote on a matter of conscience, does he equally think that it is right that those members of any Administration who feel strongly on these matters should be excluded? Presumably he does. If he does, he has a strange view of what forms a matter of conscience.

Mr. Blair: I think that most people have an increasingly clear view of the Government. Is the Prime Minister not aware— [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order and listen to what is being said.

Mr. Blair: I remind the Prime Minister that that was a Government Bill, proposed by his Lord Chancellor. Last night's vote was not only about the amendment—it was fundamentally about the ethos of the Bill and about the direction of the Conservative party. Does not that vote


show the advanced state of decay of his Government—that he now has to rely on Opposition support to carry that messed-up measure through the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is deliberately misleading, and he knows that he is deliberately misleading— [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Prime Minister did not intend to use unparliamentary language. I refer to the words "deliberately misleading". Will he please rephrase that?

The Prime Minister: Of course—as Madam Speaker wishes it. I will simply say that the right hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous in the way in which he addresses this issue. He has known from the Bill's outset that I have made it clear that, on the issue of fault and on other issues of conscience, there was to be a genuinely free vote of the House. A free vote was not forced on the Government. I announced it from the Dispatch Box last November when I spoke about the Bill in the Queen's Speech. I have honoured that promise, for every member of my party.
I made it clear that we were to have a free vote, and I made it clear to every member of the Government that a free vote would apply to them as well. In the past we have had free votes on other matters of conscience, such as capital punishment and Sunday trading. I believe that on an issue of such importance, and on one which is a matter of conscience, it is right for hon. Members to have an opportunity to vote exactly as their consciences dictate. I believe that that is in the best interests of Parliament. Moreover, if I had imposed a Whip on members of the Government after announcing that there would be a free vote, the right hon. Gentleman would now be criticising me from the Dispatch Box for not allowing the genuine free vote that I promised the House some months ago. I gave my word to the House, and I have kept it.

Mr. Blair: I do not mind the Prime Minister talking tough with me, but it is time that he also talked tough with his Cabinet—that is all that we ask. Is this not all of a piece with the defiance that we heard—[Interruption.] We heard the Chancellor this morning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where were you?"] Conservative Members are all shouting— [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Sir Ivan and other hon. Members who are shouting, come to order.

Mr. Blair: They are all asking where I was. That is a novel constitutional proposition—that it is now my duty to turn up and vote with the Government to save them from their own Cabinet Ministers. After hearing the Chancellor this morning, and with two Cabinet Ministers sitting in silent support of the European Communities (European Court) Bill, is not the Prime Minister's real problem that every member of his Cabinet has a future agenda but him? Until he gets an agenda and asserts it, this country will continue to suffer from the most feeble Government in living memory.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that I set out the agenda last November, and I have kept to that agenda. I realise that in the new autocratic Labour party—where party henchmen oversee

everything that Front Benchers and Back Benchers say and, should they stray, a signed statement is put out in their names later on the same day—the concept of a free vote is alien to the right hon. Gentleman.
The next time the right hon. Gentleman talks to us about his conscience and matters related to church and conscience, perhaps he will say that it does not apply when he sees political advantage. He would be prepared to go through people for his own party political interests and to go against their consciences—even on a matter that affects the conscience of every hon. Member. If that is the way he behaves in opposition, people will be aware of that and they will be aware of what sort of Government he would be likely to have if he ever had the opportunity. What he has revealed to the House this afternoon is that he has no understanding of parliamentary tradition, no understanding of individual conscience and no understanding of the way in which Parliament must deal with matters of this sort which affect the consciences of every hon. Member and every family in the country

Mr. Spring: Does my right hon. Friend share the universal disgust that, despite the clear way forward that has been mapped out for enduring peace and stability in Northern Ireland, the IRA's bombing campaign continues unabated? Does he share my outrage that a proposal to condemn the ending of the IRA ceasefire was rejected by the Labour party in Islington?

The Prime Minister: I can only hope that the Leader of the Opposition will bring his own party in Islington into line on a matter of importance to everyone in the United Kingdom. It puts into proper context the nonsense that the right hon. Gentleman has just been talking to the House.
Sinn Fein and the IRA, with their tired old combination of bullets and bombs, remain locked in the past. While they do so, they must remain outside the democratic consensus established by the two Governments. and outside the democratic consensus of all the other parties in Northern Ireland. I repeat to Sinn Fein that it has to make a choice, for it cannot duck it. If it wishes to become a democratic party, it must make it clear that it will have no truck now or in the future with violence of the sort that we have seen. If it does not do that, there is no way in which it can join the democratic discussions about the future of Northern Ireland.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April. [25067]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago

Mrs. Kennedy: Given the President of the Board of Trade's gloomy prediction that manufacturing firms are set to shed jobs in the coming months, and remembering that almost 3 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared from Britain since his party came to power, does the Prime Minister realise that his claims to have made Britain the enterprise centre of Europe have no credibility whatever?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the hon. Lady has slightly misinterpreted, first, what my right hon.


Friend said and, secondly, the facts. Perhaps she would care to acknowledge that manufacturing employment is 50,000 higher now than at the beginning of 1994; that this is the first time that a downward trend has been reversed for many years; that manufacturing output has risen by more than 8 per cent.; that exports have risen by a quarter to record levels; that total manufacturing investment in plant and machinery is up by 16 per cent.; that across the economy as a whole 5,000 new jobs have been created every week since the recovery began—almost three quarters of a million in all. While the policies of the Labour party would destroy jobs, the Government are creating jobs faster than any other comparable economy in western Europe. We have a lower level of unemployment than any other such economy in western Europe. The policy of the minimum wage and similar policies would certainly increase unemployment. As the deputy leader of the Labour party said some time ago, any silly fool knows that—even the deputy leader of the Labour party.

Mr. Renton: Contrary to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy), I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent speech that he made yesterday on Britain as the enterprise centre of Europe and on his vivid comment that those who think that Britain can be a trading haven on the edge of Europe without being in the European Union are in cloud cuckoo land. Does he recall that the original cloud cuckoo land was an imaginary city built in the air by the birds? Would that not also be a suitable destination for those who think that they can vote Labour without seeing their personal and business taxes go sky high?

The Prime Minister: That does not apply only to personal and business taxes. It now seems that anyone who is ill advised enough to encourage their youngsters to stay on and take A-levels will lose £560 in child benefit every year. Those who happen to have two children aged

between 16 and 18 doing A-levels will lose more than £1,000 a year. There is no purpose in the shadow Chancellor's shaking his head: that is his policy—that is his response to people on low incomes who want their children to take A-levels, proceed to university and do better.
We are not talking just about the withdrawal of child benefit. Before child benefit it was a tax allowance. This is the direct equivalent of a tax increase of £560 for every family with children taking A-levels. There is no point in the shadow Chancellor's shaking his head: it is his policy and it is nonsense—and we intend to tell every family in the land about it.

Mr. Chris Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April. [25068]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Davies: Does the Prime Minister accept that the Government's statement earlier this week about anti-personnel land mines was a case of three steps forward in PR terms and two steps backward in terms of reality? It will greatly disappoint people all over the world who can take no steps at all because their limbs have been destroyed by those inhumane weapons. Will the Prime Minister not support the recommendations in today's left-wing The Daily Telegraph, which suggests that the Government and Britain should take a moral lead in calling for a unilateral ban on the production and use of such weapons?

The Prime Minister: I just wonder where the hon. Gentleman may have been about 13 minutes ago, when I made it perfectly clear that we would work for a total worldwide ban on anti-personnel mines. I would have hoped that he could support that.

BSE

Mr. Elliot Morley: (by private notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he would make a statement on the proposals that he was submitting to the European Union on bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Right hon. and hon. Members will recall that I made a statement in the House on 16 April, in which I made it plain that the Government's purpose was to achieve, as speedily as we could, a rapid and complete lifting of the ban on the export of British beef and beef products. In that and previous statements, I set out a wide range of measures including a buy-up scheme for all cattle aged over 30 months, further tightening of controls on specified bovine offals, and further tightening of the rules governing animal feed. I discussed the details of those measures with Commissioner Fischler on Tuesday.
As I said on 16 April, we were considering the possibility of a scheme of selective culling to accelerate the decline in the incidence of BSE at an acceptable cost. Since that time, I have developed the idea still further, and I have incorporated a more flexible approach to the targeting of animals identified as being most at risk of developing BSE.
That concept involves giving farmers the choice between slaughtering them and placing them under a restriction order. As was made plain in my previous statement, the scheme would involve only limited numbers of individual animals, amounting to tens rather than hundreds of thousands. It would not involve the slaughter of whole herds.
I have now sent an outline of my ideas to the European Agriculture Commissioner, who is considering them ahead of next week's meeting of the Agriculture Council. I have made it clear to Commissioner Fischler that the Government would consider implementing such a scheme only in the context of plans for the lifting of the EU ban on British beef. I will report to the House on the outcome of these delicate and sensitive negotiations.
I am also discussing my proposals with representatives of the British beef industry, and my officials and I will be having further discussions with them and others in due course.

Mr. Morley: The whole House will welcome a chance to discuss new details of BSE slaughter packages. It is only right for those details to be reported to the House rather than just to the media. We welcome the fact that measures are being put to the Commission to restore consumer confidence, deal with the BSE problem and bring the beef export ban to an end as quickly as possible.
I have some questions about the proposed measures. First, we understand that a system to trace cattle back to their origin has been proposed. While we welcome that—it is a measure that we proposed more than six years ago—there will be difficulties. Could the Minister give some details of how any such tracing operation will work, and of the time scale that would be involved?
Secondly, will the Minister confirm that, according to his proposals, the tracing will be done from herds in which animals were born after September 1990? Given

that the feed ban was imposed in July 1988, why is 1990 the chosen year? Does that not point to some problems in the implementation of the feed ban at that time?
By identifying year groups for selective slaughter, which we understand is one of the proposals, does the Minister appreciate that some holdings could lose cattle from three-year cohorts? The cost implications for those holdings in terms of lost milk production may be more than the simple replacement value of the animals. Will that be taken into account in any compensation package? Can the Minister give some idea of the proportion of the total package of new measures that will be met by European Union funding?
Did the Minister put proposals to the Commission for exemptions for some beef animals over the age of 30 months for human consumption when they are from BSE-free sources? Is he confident that the restriction order measures that he announced will not be open to fraud, and that measures will be put in place to prevent it? I understand from the proposals that calves from cows subject to restriction orders will not be used for human consumption. Does that reflect a change of thinking by the Ministry on risk assessment, or the possibility of vertical transmission of BSE?
I reiterate our concern that the Ministry should recognise potential welfare problems for animals under these new measures, and should ensure that full consideration is given to that.
Finally, may I ask about reports that the Commission is still waiting for details of these proposals in writing, and is disappointed by the failure to deliver the Government's promised plan? Are those details the Government's total proposals to the Commission, and is the Minister confident that they will bring about a lifting of the European ban?
It is important that a negotiated settlement is presented and agreed on the basis of sensible measures, rather than relying on empty threats and sabre rattling. We want to see a clear programme of measures to help the beef sector at all levels, and measures to protect and reassure consumers so as to restore stability to the beef market. We support any move that will put us on course for that objective.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. Perhaps I may make the obvious point that we are in the process of delicate and sensitive negotiations. Therefore, I hope that the House will understand if I avoid too much detail.
The ideas that I have forwarded in writing to Commissioner Fischler, to whom I have also spoken on a number of occasions, are set in the context of clear framework plans for the rapid and complete lifting of the ban. I think that that accords with the sense of the House.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues. Traceability is clearly important, and he will recall what I said about that in my previous statement—that we hope to have an operating passport system up and running by the beginning of June or thereabouts.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about beasts that were born before September 1990. He will bear it in mind that the mandatory requirement for birth documents came into effect only at about that time. In addition, the incubation period for BSE is between four and five years.


Consequently, if we focus on the older animal, the seven or eight-year-old beast, we are not being as effective as we might otherwise be, in the sense that those older beasts will either have developed the condition or will not develop it at all.
Compensation is an important matter, which I discussed yesterday with industry representatives. We will discuss that.
On exemptions, that too is an important point. It goes to the question of the 30-month rule. I have discussed that with Commissioner Fischler and I hope that Ministry officials will shortly go with proposals on how we might agree a carefully defined scheme. The evidence available suggests that vertical transmission does not occur. Welfare is an important question, and my right hon. and hon. Friends are conscious of it.
In substance, I agree with the broad approach adopted by the hon. Gentleman. I am in the business of negotiating and of persuading.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: May I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that, this morning, I received a letter from a veterinary surgeon who travels extensively in Europe? He tells me that it is commonly recognised on the continent, especially in Ireland, Holland, Belgium, France and Germany, that the incidence of BSE there is at least as high as in this country—and probably, in some cases, considerably higher.
What confidence can my right hon. and learned Friend really have that he will be able to bring reason to bear and to negotiate on the basis of scientific principles, when it is painfully obvious that the people with whom he must negotiate are turning their back against the deficiencies in their own country and arguing from entirely different premises? What possible grounds does he have for optimism? Is not the alternative to turn around and say that, if we were to impose a ban on the importation of European beef products, we would not be indulging in an exercise in law breaking—we would, in all probability, be protecting the health of this country's citizens?

Mr. Hogg: It is the objective of the British Government and, I believe, of the European Commission to restore the single market in beef and beef products. That essential proposition is subscribed to by member states. I hope that I will be able to persuade those states to honour the implied and, indeed, expressed commitments that are part of the single market concept, so I am relying on persuasion and negotiation, pointing to what we have done and to what we propose to do, as set out in my statement on 16 April.
I am certain that there is a much higher level of BSE on the mainland of Europe than has been disclosed in the figures, but I do not subscribe to the proposition that the incidence is as high as it is in this country. I fear that our problem has been greater, but my hon. Friend is right to say that there is a substantial number of undeclared cases on the mainland of Europe.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister knows that we entirely sympathise with his objective of having the ban lifted as soon as possible, but it would help if he explained the basis for the proposition that he has told the House about today. Is it necessary to have culling of the number of cows that he proposes for

entirely scientific reasons—which is not the view, as I understand it, of the National Farmers Union—or is it necessary to restore consumer confidence and because that is the political requirement of other member states and of the Commission? That would be inconsistent with the line that the Government have always adopted so far. He needs to tell us, because otherwise the danger is that we will be in a series of negotiations where the number may just be upped and upped and upped for no justifiable reason.
There is one matter that the Minister has not yet told the House about, and I should be grateful if he or the Government dealt with it: if there is to be any culling, what environmental and public health activities and actions will the Government propose to ensure that there is no public health risk from any culling of any animals anywhere in the country?

Mr. Hogg: It is perfectly true that a culling policy is not essential in terms of achieving human health, because the controls that we have in place already achieve that. It is also true that a culling policy is not essential in terms of promoting animal health, because of the way in which BSE develops, its relationship with feed and the action that we have taken on the feed regulations. None the less, I would make two points.
First, restoring consumer confidence is an important policy objective for us all, and for the European countries. Secondly, if one stands back and asks oneself whether one is content that, in a country such as Britain, which has such high standards of agricultural quality, we should, after 10 years or so of BSE, still have a substantial number of cases in our national herd, the answer must be no.
Therefore, if, in a targeted and proportionate way, acceptable to the industry and the House, we can significantly accelerate the decline in the incidence of BSE, I commend it to the House and the industry on its merits.

Sir Hector Monro: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the warm thanks of the farming community and the National Farmers Union for all the work that he has put into resolving the crisis? Will he accept that, as of today, the most pressing problem facing farmers, where fodder is now very short, is the disposal of beasts over 30 months old to the auction marts or slaughterhouses under his prime beef scheme? Can my right hon. and learned Friend give me any sort of assurance that the intervention board will have its scheme up and running by next week?

Mr. Hogg: It is our intention that the scheme should be up and running in the week beginning 29 April. I am conscious that, in the early stages, it may not run as smoothly as one would wish—there is a risk of that. However, I can tell the House that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends will be sensitive to points that have been made by the industry and by right hon. and hon. Members, and we will do our best to ensure that the schemes—there are more than one—operate as smoothly as possible. We will be as responsive as we can to complaints that the schemes are not running as smoothly as possible.

Mr. George Foulkes: Does not the Minister realise that his vacillation,


his to-ing and fro-ing and his blowing hot and cold over the past six weeks are causing a great deal of disquiet among farmers in Scotland, in Ayrshire in particular, and to people down the line involved in the meat processing, rendering and distribution industries and in the slaughterhouses? What sort of message does he have for the hundreds of people who have been laid off in those industries over the past few weeks? What sort of compensation will they receive? When will they get their jobs back? He has made some sort of concessions to farmers, but what about all the others whose jobs depend on the meat industry?

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that I have been guilty of any vacillation or of blowing hot and cold. I have tried to pursue a steady course, and I think that I have succeeded. I have the utmost sympathy for people who have lost their jobs or suffered lay-offs in the way that the hon. Gentleman has described, but, as I made plain in my statement to the House on 16 April, our objective in the targeting of financial assistance is to maintain the vital links of the beef industry in good and viable condition. I have never pretended, and I do not pretend, that we are trying to compensate everybody for loss. That is not practical, and it is not the justification for the compensation payments that I brought forward on 16 April.

Mr. Roger Gale: May I raise with my right hon. and learned Friend the concerns expressed at the meeting of the all-party animal welfare group when it raised this issue earlier this week? First, it was concerned that the scientifically unjustified slaughter plans may turn into an open-ended response to economic blackmail through the Council of Ministers.
Secondly, there was concern about the need to see compensation paid for casualty animals slaughtered on the farm to avoid the inhumane and unnecessary transport to slaughter to obtain payment for unfit animals. Thirdly, there was concern about the need to amend the European directive to base compensation formulas on hot carcase weight rather than live weight, again to avoid cruelty to the beasts.
Clearly we will see the slaughter of many thousands, if not millions, of animals under unprecedented circumstances. Will my right hon. and learned Friend say that he will put animal welfare and animal husbandry at the top of his list of priorities?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is quite right to place such emphasis on animal welfare. I hope that he will be reassured by the language I have used—that the ideas that we have in mind involve the slaughter of tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands of beasts. That is what I said on 16 April.
I am conscious that the Government's ability to move ahead with such a policy, if that is what is decided, depends ultimately on the consent of the House and the industry. That is a major reassurance on the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) about the size of any particular policy. The relationship between dead weight and live weight is indeed important. The draft conclusions on compensation made provision

for both. I raised the question with Commissioner Fischler on Tuesday, and he responded sympathetically to the point that I made.

Mr. Roy Beggs: May I put it to the Minister that, while we appreciate the earnestness with which he is trying to resolve the matter, there is inherent prejudice among our European colleagues against accepting his recommendations? In the event of his present proposals not being accepted, will he take account of early-day motion 773, and try to ensure that beef in herds in regions of the United Kingdom that have farm-assured schemes and traceability records that can confirm BSE-free status, can move, and move immediately, without having to cope with the prejudice in Europe?

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had an extremely useful meeting, at which I was present, with representatives of all the NFUs in the United Kingdom, most particularly from Northern Ireland, although other parts of the UK were represented. I entirely recognise that the system of traceability and record keeping in Northern Ireland is an example to the rest of the Kingdom. I accept that.
I have a very great preference for trying to bring about a collective rather than a partial solution. The point raised about exemptions is particularly relevant. If we can drive through the concept of exemptions in respect of the 30-month rule, it might be part of a process of relaxing the ban, and would, I think, be of particular benefit to Northern Ireland due to the nature of the herds and the very high degree of traceability provided for in the Province.

Mr. Edward Garnier: May I, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his efforts on behalf of British farmers, but remind him that one of the problems facing farmers is the damage to cash flow? Will he please ensure that any compensation packages are paid quickly, so that cash flow, and thus businesses, are not endangered further?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. and learned Friend makes a very serious point. We will try to ensure the speedy payment of any of the money that is due under the provisions that I set out in my statement on 16 April and in other statements. Other support payments are of course available to producers, and I shall do my best to ensure that they are also made very promptly, especially to producers of dairy cows and beef.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Minister has said this afternoon and in earlier statements that he is thinking in terms of tens of thousands of cattle, and a figure of 40,000 has been quoted in the media. Will our European partners be impressed by a figure that amounts only to one third of 1 per cent. of the total cattle herd? Would that eradicate BSE?
Is it not now clear that we urgently and desperately need a test for BSE in live cattle, so that we can be certain that the animals slaughtered are the ones that carry BSE? Will the Minister commission urgent work from his Department to develop such a test? I am sure that it could be done in a matter of weeks—certainly months.

Mr. Hogg: Again, I make the point that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, at his very useful fleeting with


the NFU, had the opportunity to talk with Welsh representatives, which was helpful and we were grateful to them for coming. Live tests have been discussed before in the House. I have a feeling that I may have had the pleasure of discussing them with the hon. Gentleman. We would very much like to have a live test and are supporting research into one. We want a live test, but so far as we can judge, a valid one is not yet available or likely to be available in the immediate future. I wish that it was otherwise.
On the scale of the cull, slaughtering cattle over the age of 30 months that have completed their working lives—the old milkers—would involve the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of beasts in the course of the year. We are now focusing on the selective cull idea. We have tried to produce a plan that is intellectually sustainable and that targets the group of animals most at risk. I believe that the House wants that and that it accords with common sense. I therefore hope to persuade our colleagues in Europe to accept it.

Mr. John Greenway: May I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for resisting the temptation to go for a massive cull of British cattle, especially of whole herds of dairy cattle? Can he confirm that what he has told us will have a negligible impact on milk supplies in the United Kingdom? None the less, given the uncertainty that has been generated in the dairy and beef industries, will he do his level best to implement his proposals speedily? Do not our European partners and the Commission have a duty and responsibility to make sure that all the uncertainty is quickly ended?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The ideas that I have presented to the House will have a very small effect on milk production. My hon. Friend is right about the great importance that we and the House attach to rapid progress.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Minister emphasised selective culling. Can he say whether a proportion of the animals slaughtered will be scientifically investigated to find whether a key link can be established that would help the search for a live test? If we are to go through this procedure, there should be such a

recommendation. Scientific and research institutes should be alerted to that possibility. I hope that we will able, at the end of all this, to see some way forward.

Mr. Hogg: Representatives of the Scottish NFU were at the recent meeting with the Prime Minister. I know that the Prime Minister was extremely pleased to have their views, which were most helpful. On the live test, I do not see a relationship between developing a live test and the pathology that might be available at the completion of a selective cull. None the less, the hon. Lady has raised the concept and I am willing to put it to those who are considering how best to bring about a live test to find whether there is anything that we can learn from a selective cull if we adopt it. I do not see a relationship, but I may be wrong about that.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in applauding the tolerance and patience of the meat and livestock industry on both sides of the farm gate? Does he accept that patience and, more particularly cash, are running out? There is an urgent necessity for the ban on British beef to be lifted. Will he assure us that if it is not lifted by the European Community next week, he will assert the authority of the House and instruct his Department to start reissuing export licences for British beef to non-EC countries?

Mr. Hogg: This has been one of the greatest calamities to face British agriculture for decades. Against that background, the farmers of the United Kingdom have shown extraordinary patience and tolerance. It must be an intensely worrying and distressing time for them, and I am deeply impressed by the way in which their representatives in the National Farmers Union and other bodies, as well as individuals, have conducted themselves.
My hon. Friend is right about the importance of getting cash, and I understand about the cash running out. That explains the package that I announced on 16 April, and the importance that I attach to making early payments in respect of other support that may be due. We attach great importance to the lifting of the ban, and the concepts that I have outlined for a selective cull must be seen in that framework.

Several hon. Members: rose-

Madam Speaker: Thank you. We shall now move on to the business question.

Business of the House

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Leader of the House set out the forthcoming business, please?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 29 APRIL—Progress on remaining stages of the Housing Bill.
TUESDAY 30 APRIL—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Housing Bill.
Motions relating to the Education (Grants for Nursery Education) (England) Regulations and the Education (Grants for Education Support and Training: Nursery Education) (England) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 1 MAY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.
Motion on the Elections (Northern Ireland) Order.
Motion on the Deregulation and Contracting Out (Northern Ireland) Order.
THURSDAY 2 MAY—Second Reading of the Arbitration Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 3 MAY—The House will not be sitting.
During that week, the House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
On a more provisional basis, the proposals for the following week are as follows:
On Monday 6 May the House will not be sitting, because it is a bank holiday.
TUESDAY 7 MAY—Second Reading of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Contracting Out (Administration of Civil Service Pension Schemes) Order.
WEDNESDAY 8 MAY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day (11th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 9 MAY—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill.
FRIDAY 10 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 1 May to debate natural mineral waters.
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that it is proposed that on Wednesday 8 May there will be a debate on the welfare of calves in European Standing Committee A and a debate on consumer credit in European Standing Committee B. Details of relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

[Wednesday 1 May:

European Standing Committee A—European Community document: 12712/95, Natural Mineral Waters. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 51-viii (1995–96) and HC 51-xiv (1995–96).

Wednesday 8 May:

European Standing Committee A—European Community documents: 13099/95 and 4647/96, Welfare of Calves. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC-5 I-xii (1995–96).

European Standing Committee B—European Community documents: 7774/95 and unnumbered, Consumer Credit. Relevant European Legislation Reports: HC 70-xxiii (1994–95), HC 70-xxv (1994–95) and HC 51-xi (1995–96).

Mr. Rooker: I thank the Leader of the House for continuing to use his best endeavours to announce two weeks' business, albeit that the second week's business is given on a provisional basis. Most hon. Members are most grateful for that, because it allows other arrangements to be made.
I accept that business sometimes has to be changed, but we think it unfortunate that last night's Government decision to draw stumps on the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill and to transfer its remaining stages to next Wednesday means that some of the votes next Wednesday on that Bill and on the motions, especially those on Northern Ireland. will be exceptionally late. I am not one who says that the House should never sit late, but we do not think that the business of the House is so overloaded that no other slot could have been found for the Bill.
The Leader of the House will be aware of the two significant defeats that the Government have sustained on the rights of disabled people over 65 in Committee on the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill, which has now completed its Committee stage. There is considerable interest among disabled people over 65 in the fate of those amendments, which would benefit them. We require from the Government both an early statement about whether they intend to accept the amendments, and early notification of when Report stage will take place, so that Ministers and others can be subject to the lobbying that will need to take place.
Finally, I refer to two issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), the shadow Leader of the House, raised with the right hon. Gentleman last week. The first is about water supply. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of reports in today's Daily Express that Ministers are considering proposals to deal with water supply problems? Is not the House the place to debate water supply problems, particularly in advance of yet another crisis? We do not want to have a crisis and then have hon. Members from both sides of the House say, "What has happened since last year?" We should have a general debate on the issue rather than have the Government in a hole in the corner trying to find a solution. Our constituents will not thank us if there is a crisis this summer, just as there was last summer.
The second point that was raised last week concerns the electricity industry. Is it the intention of the Government to make an early statement in the House on the decision of the President of the Board of Trade—with


which we agree—to overrule the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on electricity company takeovers? Even when the Opposition agree with the Government, it is still the right of the House to have a statement made so that hon. Members from both sides can question the Minister—otherwise, it looks as if there has been a fix between the two Front Benches, and that is not the intention. Consensus and agreement are not excuses for Ministers not to come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement. Furthermore, there is turmoil over the ownership and structure of the electricity industry, and there are good grounds for having a one-day general debate on the issue.

Mr. Newton: I shall take the questions in reverse order. I note that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the statement of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade following his study of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of my right hon. Friend. Similarly, I shall bring his points about water supply to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, if only by way of warning him of a question that he may be asked when he is here for questions on Tuesday next week.
On the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill, I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends are carefully considering what happened in Committee. However, I am not in a position to say what their conclusions may be. As always, I shall give the House as much notice as I can about the remaining stages of the proceedings—as I do with others, including those that I have announced this afternoon.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that last night—after the House had already had two very late nights this week—it was clear that hon. Members wished to spend a considerable amount of time on the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill. We felt that it was right to provide for that at a more convenient time than last night. That is met by the proposal that I have announced this afternoon. Finally, I am extremely grateful for the kind words with which the hon. Gentleman began his remarks.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend will have heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food indicate to the House in reply to a question that the bovine spongiform encephalopathy problem is one of the worst crises, if not the worst crisis, to hit agriculture in this country for many decades. Therefore, I request my right hon. Friend to find time for a debate on agriculture in general, so that hon. Members can present and explore the dire problems that farmers are experiencing in feeding their livestock—as is the case in my constituency of Macclesfield, particularly for those who are on the marginal and hill land—and the problems that we fear for milk, which could well be affected by even the selective cull policy announced by my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Newton: As I have demonstrated on earlier occasions, I shall keep the possible need for such a debate very much in mind. However, I think that the right time to make a judgment about that will be in the light of what happens at the Agriculture Council next week and the

statement that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has said that he will make to the House following that meeting.

Mr. David Trimble: Is the Leader of the House aware of our concern about the shambles that the Northern Ireland Office is in regarding its business? I understand that the reforms of the Grand Committee are still stuck somewhere in that. More significantly, there is a serious problem with the elections order, which, as he announced, will be debated late on Wednesday night. That is a complex provision, dealing with the details of an entirely novel electoral system. As yet, there has been no consultation that I am aware of with any of the parties concerned—not even, I understand, with the Labour party—yet we must have some basis on which to be able to discuss it, or to catch some of the mistakes before they are made.

Mr. Newton: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's opening line about a shambles was perhaps a bit ungenerous. I should perhaps make it clear that I do not agree with it, but I have no desire to pick a squabble with him. On the rest of what he said, I think that he will agree that my right hon. and learned Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary has very much sought to consult people at every stage of the process, acknowledging that there is very great pressure on, for example, the draftsmen and others in view of the speed with which all this is progressing, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will do his best to try to maintain the posture that he has previously maintained.
I know that, among the many other things that my right hon. and learned Friend is seeking to do at the moment, he will be seeking a convenient opportunity to speak to the Northern Ireland parties in respect of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.

Sir Hector Monro: I ask my right hon. Friend, in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton): may we have a debate on the common agricultural policy over and above what takes place in Committee, where time is so limited?

Mr. Newton: I shall of course consider that proposal very carefully.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that next Monday is the start of what is positively the last year of this Parliament, I assume that the Leader of the House does not want to pick a squabble with anyone in the coming year, in view of the Government's majority. I nevertheless say to him that, in the light of the exchanges between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Labour party at Question Time, he may need slightly to revise the way in which he gives business statements, in a way that I hope will be supportive of him and the Prime Minister.
The principle on which we have always acted on votes in the House is that every vote is a free vote, but some have a party line applied to them. May I say, on behalf of


my colleagues, that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House have been completely unjustly castigated by the press and by the leader of the Labour party?

Mr. John Marshall: You did not vote last night.

Mr. Hughes: I did vote last night.

Mr. Marshall: I meant that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) did not.

Mr. Hughes: No, that is—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hughes: They were castigated for voting as they wished to on a Bill that was at all times a Bill on which the Government had a duty to introduce the legislation without expecting even their supporters to endorse it.
Will the Leader of the House reaffirm that Governments will always introduce some legislation that they do not expect their supporters to back, and accept that, if the leader of the Labour party believes that he will abdicate that principle, it is about the most severe threat to democracy that the House has heard for a very long time?

Mr. Newton: Far from picking a squabble with the hon. Gentleman, I very much welcome and wholly agree with the spirit of what he said. Indeed, in the past—notably when I was Minister for Health—I have been associated with such measures myself, related to abortion and embryology, for example, which were brought before the House with the specific intention of enabling the House to make the type of decision that we made last night. I emphasise that further by reminding the House that the Government offered—and I think it was accepted—drafting assistance with the amendments, to facilitate that process.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I am rarely at odds with my right hon. Friend in his selection of business, but I must ask why it has not been possible to hold a debate on the Audit Commission report on the performance of local councils, especially at this moment, when in a week's time the people of our country will elect their local councils in the various shire and rural areas. Surely the House should have been able to debate, and point out the shocking service that people receive from Labour and Liberal councils.

Mr. Newton: I must admit that it sounds quite a good idea, but so also, from my point of view, is getting on with the Government's legislative programme, much of which is very helpful to local authorities.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: When can the House have an opportunity to debate the horrendous attacks by the racist regime in Israel on the Lebanon, which are intended to destroy Lebanon's economy, to

continue Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon and, in the long term, to get the waters of the Litani, which has been a long-standing aim of Eretz Israel?

Mr. Newton: The British Government, working with other Governments in any way that we can, will do everything conceivable to bring about a solution to the tragic situation in Lebanon.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Is it possible to arrange for an urgent, early debate on the link between staying-on rates post-16 and child benefit, given that the proposal to eliminate child benefit for those aged between 16 and 18 would be an absolute nightmare for millions of blue-collar worker families?

Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend: it is the most extraordinary proposal that I have heard for some time. It will leave many families, including those that are less well off, in a significantly worse position while discouraging them from doing what we have encouraged them to do for years: keep their children at school in order to acquire greater skills. The proposed policy is absolutely insane.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: When will there be a statement to the House about the firearms amnesty that was declared yesterday? Although the amnesty is generally welcome, is the Leader of the House aware that many people believe that it does not go far enough? More than 140 Members of Parliament have signed my early-day motion 639.
[That this House calls on the Government to introduce legislation to make it illegal for private individuals to possess hand guns and to enforce much stricter control of all fire-arms.]
More than 420,000 people have signed the Sunday Mail petition demanding an urgent review of firearms legislation and a ban on the private ownership of handguns. Will the Government take steps to introduce the necessary legislation instead of simply waiting for Lord Cullen to state the obvious?

Mr. Newton: While understanding why the hon. Gentleman makes that point, I think that, having set up Lord Cullen's inquiry and created a specific opportunity to examine the matters about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned, the Government would be open to considerable criticism if they were to act without waiting for the results of that inquiry. However, I note with gratitude the hon. Gentleman's support for the amnesty.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: May I show solidarity with my honourable, close and affectionate friend, the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), in requesting my right hon. Friend to arrange a further debate on BSE, which is the most urgent problem to affect this country's rural areas for decades? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although the House debated the issue a month ago, farming communities continue to operate in limbo in spite of the measures that have been introduced? For example, farmers in my constituency ask me whether they will be compensated for the dairy cows that have reached the end of their lives—which were worth £200 at market before the crisis—for which they must now pay £30 to have removed and slaughtered. In the light of the fact that


many small dairy farms have difficulty managing their cash flow, it is a vital matter that needs the urgent attention of the House.

Mr. Newton: While I cannot add to my earlier comments about the possibility of a debate, I acknowledge that the combination of Macclesfield and Congleton in happy marital harmony is a formidable pressure.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) mentioned, the Water Companies Association stated yesterday that the present regulatory regime is failing both companies and customers. It called upon the Government to take a belated lead and conduct a national overview of water resources. I suggest that the odd answer during Question Time is not sufficient to address issues involving an essential public service such as water. In view of the extreme public disquiet, I urge the Leader of the House to stress the need for a full statement about the present situation.

Mr. Newton: My earlier answer was only a relatively light way of saying that I would ensure that the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was drawn to the remarks made to me—and I now have double cause for doing so. We welcome the association's review of water resource levels, and the Environment Agency will report to my right hon. Friend in the next few days.

Mr. Piers Merchant: Will my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity for the House to review the practical workings of the Register of Members' Interests, in view of concerns that there may be methods of disguising the real origin of hon. Members' non-parliamentary income? I refer in particular to the current entry in the register for the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam).

Mr. Newton: Some reference to that matter was made in a point of order raised with you, Madam Speaker, earlier this week. I do not wish to comment beyond your own remarks—other than making the obvious point that if complaints are made that hon. Members are not complying with the rules, the right course is to bring the matter to the attention of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

Mr. Paul Flynn: When can the House debate the major flaw in election law, whereby there is no limit on spending by individuals or parties on national funding? One Bill that came before the House in 1989 and another in 1994 warned that if an individual, who might be a billionaire, decided to spend millions of pounds on a campaign, nothing could stop him buying votes that way. Will the Government now act out of their own political interests, having failed twice to act to protect the integrity of our election system?

Mr. Newton: I have no plans to debate those matters, but I shall, with my usual generosity towards the hon. Gentleman—with whom I rarely agree—at least draw his views to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on the education

of 16 to 18-year-olds, many of whom in my constituency have already had the payment of their fares to school or college stopped by Ealing Labour council? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, they have—and that is disgraceful. Under Labour, the parents of those children would lose the child benefit that has enabled their children to remain in education. May we debate that double hammer blow on working people, who should not suffer in that way?

Mr. Newton: I think that you, Madam Speaker, would agree—although I had better not ask you to do so—that such a debate is an excellent idea.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I join hon. Members who have called for a debate about the beef crisis. Is not it remarkable that after 16 years of listening to Ministers saying that market forces will solve everything, it is now all a question of compensation and subsidy for a selected few—mainly Tory voters? Why could not miners have been given subsidies when they were being chucked out of work? Why cannot there be subsidies for all the workers in the meat trade who are being thrown out of their jobs? Why are we hearing restricted demands from Tory Members for subsidies for a selected few? If there are to be subsidies and compensation. let us make sure that everybody is treated equally.

Mr. Newton: I am not sure how closely the hon. Gentleman has studied everything that has been said. I accept that he is an assiduous Member of Parliament, and if he has followed the BSE debates carefully, he will know that the purpose of all the Government's actions has been to restore confidence in the market and therefore to assist and underpin the employment of more than half a million people. Government policy is aimed at helping all the people whose work is connected with beef.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Could we have a debate about the criteria exercised for foreign companies seeking to buy into previous utilities in this country, to ensure that they do not have an easier passage than British-based companies? For example, a bid has been made for Mid Kent Water plc in my constituency by a French consortium, half of which belongs to a company that has four subsidiaries arraigned for fraud in the French courts.

Mr. Newton: I shall bring those comments to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the Leader of the House confirm that when the welfare of calves is discussed in European Standing Committee A, there will be an hour of questions, during which time any hon. Member can attend and ask questions to discover the position? Will he also confirm that if the business today in the other place leads to many orders in connection with the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill, it will be possible to change the business next week so that that business can be dealt with next Friday?

Mr. Newton: On the latter point, let us see what happens in another place today. On the former point, after the enjoyable two hours or so that I spent being grilled by


the hon. Gentleman and others on the Select Committee on European Legislation the other day, I am glad that he has found an opportunity to advertise the merits of debates in European Standing Committees A and B.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week on the accuracy of entries in the Register of Members' Interests? Over the past fortnight, we have been regaled with stories of stays in five-star hotels, luxury flights and general swanning about in the far east by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who tells us that that was for the purpose of fostering industry in his constituency. Today, we have a letter from Barclays plc, which states:
There is no question of Mr. Mandelson being financed to support his Hartlepool constituency".
If we had a debate, we might get accurate information about that and not be misled by spin doctors.

Mr. Newton: I have focused on the fact that there appeared to be some difference of opinion about the precise object of that exercise. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, I had better not get involved in that argument beyond pointing once again to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

Mr. Tony Banks: Could we have a debate on this country's relations with Germany? It is bad enough that the Germans get down to the swimming pool first and rubbish our beef, but they have been pinching our balls. Is the Leader of the House aware that the ball with which Geoff Hurst scored a hat-trick at the Wembley world cup final in 1966 was stolen by Herr Haller at the end of the match and conveyed back to Germany? This is a serious point, because that ball is the equivalent of the holy grail to English football supporters and we want it back. In that debate, we could remind our German colleagues that this country went to war over Jenkin's ear, and we are prepared to take action over Hurst's ball.

Mr. Newton: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman and I share that splendid moment in our relative youth when that third goal went in.

Mr. Banks: Or did not.

Mr. Newton: Or did not, as the case may be. On the question of the ball that did or did not go in, I am not sure whose attention I should draw that to—perhaps His Excellency the German ambassador.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Could I too ask for a debate on the BSE crisis, so that my hard-pressed farmers can get an answer to the following question, which I was not able to put during the private notice question? What possible rational criteria could there be for lifting the ban on the export of British beef, given the fact that it was imposed by the European Commission without the slightest scrap of scientific evidence in the first place?

Mr. Newton: I realise that my hon. Friend has, in a sense, asked a frustrated question from previous business.

I shall not attempt to comment beyond what my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said, but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's concern and the way in which it was expressed is brought to my right hon. and learned Friend's attention.

Mr. Clive Betts: On 16 April, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), the Prime Minister said of Sheffield city council that
It does not…make its interest payments".—[Official Report, 16 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 509]
That comment was completely untrue and without foundation. There is not one single example of the city council failing to make its contracted interest payments. Given that the Prime Minister has so far only acknowledged a letter from my hon. Friend on that point, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to withdraw that misleading statement before the House and to apologise unreservedly to the House and to the people of Sheffield for the completely unfair and inaccurate slur that he made against their city?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman said in his question that his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) has written to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will respond appropriately.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend consider closely the demand by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) for a debate on the middle east, so that I can point out that Hezbollah has been attacking Israel with rockets for many years and that Hezbollah kamikaze bombers have been going into Israel to kill innocent Israelis? Surely no democratic Government should stand idly by and not react to such a situation, when those guerrillas are supported by the Government of Iran as well.

Mr. Newton: I shall say almost exactly the same as I said earlier. The right thing for all of us to do is to concentrate on doing the best that we can to bring an end to the situation in the Lebanon.

Mr. David Hanson: May we have an early debate on the impact of the cuts to the reduced earnings allowance, which will mean that up to 20,000 people, who are among the most severely disabled in the United Kingdom, who have earned that allowance as a result of injuries at work, will lose £29 a week? Many of my constituents, including many miners, have now lost that money from 1 April and there has been scant parliamentary discussion on the matter. May we have an early debate?

Mr. Newton: Parliament agreed in 1988 the principle that compensation for loss of earnings through reduced earnings allowance should continue past pension age only for those who continue in regular employment. People moving from REA to what is called retirement allowance still receive a preferential benefit, which recognises that reduced earnings during their working life may have led to reduced earnings-related pension rights. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least acknowledge those points.
As for the notion that at this moment I should be pressed for a debate under the general heading of social security cuts, in view of what Labour Front-Bench spokesmen are suggesting about child benefit, I simply marvel at the nerve.

Mr. Tony Bank: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During business questions, two Conservative Members raised the matter of the Register of Members' Interests. That included an attack by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who is not someone I usually leap to defend. If such exchanges are to take place, would it not be appropriate for hon. Members to give notice—it may have been in this case—to hon. Members that such points, which are quite serious, will be raised, which, in this case, have gone unchallenged?

Madam Speaker: I have made it clear that we now have a structure in the House whereby we have appointed a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and if hon. Members are concerned about matters of finance, resources or visits abroad which have been received and are not properly recorded, or which should not have taken place, the Commissioner is the person to whom the matter should be referred. Such matters should not be raised either in points of order or during business questions across the Floor of the House.

BILL PRESENTED

ELECTED HEAD OF STATE (REFERENDUMS)

Mr. Paul Flynn presented a Bill to make provision for referendums to be held on the future constitutional status of the Sovereign as Head of State and on the means of electing any future elected Head of State: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 2nd May, do adjourn till Tuesday 7th May.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Question agreed to.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94H(1),
That the Order of the House [11th December] be further amended, in paragraph 8, by leaving out the words 'in Scotland on Monday 13th May' and inserting the words 'in the Maryatt Halls, Dundee, on Monday 13th May'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Rating (Caravans and Boats) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

CARAVANS AND BOATS OCCUPIED AS SOLE OR MAIN RESIDENCE

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
("(4A) Subsection (3) or (4) above does not have effect in the case of a pitch occupied by a caravan, or a mooring occupied by a boat, which is an appurtenance enjoyed with other property to which subsection (1) (a) above applies.")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
We welcome the amendments proposed in the other place and I urge the House to accept them.
Lords amendment No.1 ensures that pitches occupied by caravans or moorings occupied by boats which are part of a larger domestic property, such as a house with a river frontage mooring, will be considered as an appurtenance to the main property. They will therefore be domestic property. Without this amendment, any such pitches or moorings would be non-domestic property and subject to non-domestic rates. Furthermore, new rating lists are required because of local government reorganisation in Wales. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 will enable the Bill's provisions to apply in the same manner in England and in Wales.
I have been asked to mention another issue in relation to boat owners' concerns about council tax. This is a rating Bill and, as such, it is not the right vehicle with which to deal with problems relating to council tax. Nevertheless, the Residential Boatowners Association is being consulted, and will be fully consulted, on the Valuation Office Agency's new guidelines on moorings. The VOA has issued instructions to its local offices that no mooring cases will be pursued until the guidelines have been issued.
If the association still feels that there are problems after the guidelines are in place, we shall review the situation and, if necessary, put the problems right through the right mechanism—council tax legislation.

Ms Hilary Armstrong: We are quite happy to accept the amendments, which demonstrate the problems encountered in making legislation. The Bill was originally introduced because a valuation panel had, in essence, changed people's understanding of the existing law, which we were trying to put right. Apparently, we did not manage to do that during the Bill's earlier passage through the House, but that problem has now been corrected. I certainly agree with the Government's intention in the amendments, and I shall not oppose them.
I thank the Minister for his words of reassurance to the Residential Boatowners Association. Members of that organisation clearly have been working on the issue for


some time, and I am pleased that they have received some reassurance. It is important that groups such as that one—composed of people who live a different life style but who, none the less, have rights and responsibilities, as do the rest of us—feel that they are being fairly treated and properly consulted. Those people are looking basically for a rating system that is fair and simple to administer, as are we all. I think that we are accomplishing that aim, but the Bill's passage shows how difficult that is to achieve.
Many boat residents feel that they are being unfairly treated, and that there are too many grey areas resulting in constant disputes that waste the time and resources of everyone involved. As the Minister said, boat residents are particularly concerned about some aspects of council tax legislation. Their concern has arisen because of how they are treated by changes in council tax legislation in comparison with how they were treated under the general rates, which was, of course, before the poll tax.
Many boat residents who previously had no rates liability contend that that they now have to pay council tax in addition to licence and mooring fees, which previously were how they paid a share of local rates. Boat residents have substantial concerns, and it is right for the Government to deal with their concerns in a way that enables them to feel that they are properly involved in consultations.
Any legislation on rating and valuation ends up being far more complex than any hon. Member would like it to be. I hope that we are able to move to a clearer system so that there are not continual wrangles and conflicts over a matter in which everyone has a responsibility to make his contribution. People also have a right not to be treated unfairly. I am happy to reassure the Minister that we do not wish to press our concerns any further.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to [Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill

As amended (in the Select Committee and on re-committal in the Standing Committee), considered.

Ordered,
That on consideration of the Bill, as amended, the New Clauses be considered in the following order, namely, New Clauses 4 to 7 and New Clauses I to 3.—[Mr. Streeter.]

New clause 4

EXPENDITURE IN CONNECTION WITH SECURING CONSTRUCTION OF WORKS

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may make payments under any agreement entered into by him for the purpose of securing the construction of—

(a) any of the works authorised by this Part of this Act, or
(b) any related works.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the following are related works—

(a) a station at Stratford, in the London Borough of Newham, for use in connection with the rail link, and
(b) a railway providing access between the rail link and the West Coast Main Line by means of a connection to the North London Line.'.—[Mr. Watts.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 5—Related works: application of section 9 of the Transport and Works Act 1992.
Government amendments Nos. 1, 2, 9 and 10.
The Question is—[Interruption.] I am sorry. I call Mr. Tony Banks.

Mr. Tony Banks: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are moving so fast that I almost missed the train. I thank the Secretary of State for tabling the new clauses and amendments. When I proposed in Committee that Stratford should be named in the Bill, some of my colleagues tried to dissuade me from doing so on the ground that I would be defeated. When I explained that the amendment was exploratory and that we wished simply to go over the case, they seemed more satisfied. Even I did not expect that we would move to this particular position and I am deeply grateful to the Minister for having given an assurance at the end of a constructive debate that he would consider including Stratford within the Bill, and that he has done precisely that.
For the record, the campaign to name Stratford in the Bill and, indeed, to have the international station at Stratford, was waged—or I should say conducted; waged is too hostile and macho—by both the public and the private sector in the east end. During the campaign, we invited virtually all the Transport and Environment Ministers to the area so that they could see the site. I well remember the Minister standing at Holden point, a tower block which overlooks the Stratford railway lands, when it was pouring with rain. We were well protected and he was not, and I was worried that he might hold it against


us, but he did not. He—and, I am sure, others—was impressed by the scale of the potential in Stratford. One has to see the area to realise the scale of the potential. I am glad that the Under-Secretary will also be visiting. We look forward to letting him see what is possible at Stratford.
The campaign for Stratford was a good campaign. We worked together. It was necessary for us to argue coolly and rationally. There was not much point getting hot under the collar, which is perhaps one of my normal styles of doing things. When needs must, I can sup with the devil, although I always remember my long spoon and my manners, and the coolness with which I can maintain a good case. In the end, it was not the activities of Members of Parliament or the council which achieved success. It was simply a good case. It was good to see that Ministers were able to recognise that.
I am grateful to the Minister for tabling the new clauses and amendments. They have given enormous encouragement to the locality. I should just point out—this is really for another time—that we must make sure that when, as we can say now, the development goes ahead, the jobs that come to the east end and particularly the Stratford area match the needs of the people in the area. We do not want to see another Isle of Dogs, where the local people realised that they would not get the jobs. They suffered the conditions, but they did not get the benefits. We must make sure that the local people get the benefits because they deserve a break.
The international station at Stratford will be more than just a break. It will be a wonderful opportunity to look forward to the future with great confidence. So, again, I say thank you very much to Ministers present and past who took the time and trouble to come to Stratford, to hear our case and to listen to the lobbying from the public and private sector in the east end.
I should like to ask the Minister just one thing. Stratford will be regarded as a proposal of national significance under the Transport and Works Act 1992. Will the Minister explain for the record precisely what that will mean? The new clause does not mean that the development will necessarily take place, but I assume that when and if it does, we shall not have to argue the case for Stratford again. I welcome the new clause and amendments with much enthusiasm.

Mr. Stephen Timms: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has said. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken in introducing the new clause and amendments. It is worth putting on the record the strong support by the private sector for the campaign in favour of Stratford station. The Stratford development partnership comprised organisations such as Land Securities, Tarmac Construction, John Mowlem and Company, P and 0 Developments and Laing Civil Engineering as well as the London borough of Newham, the university of East London, the Carpenters' Company and the London Docklands development corporation. All those bodies worked together effectively with politicians to advance the case. I, too, am delighted that the Government have accepted it. Just last week, the university of East London published with Lawrence and Wishart a book called "Rising in the East", which

drew attention to the Stratford station proposal and the benefits that would come from it, all in support of the new clause that we are considering.
It is encouraging that the conditions are now right for a major boost to the economy of east London over the next 20 years. This is our one chance to change things permanently for the better in the east end. We need to get on with it now that everyone—the Government, the local authority, the local institutions and the private sector—is pointing in the same direction.
I look forward to hearing the explanation, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West asked, of the implications of treating the proposal as one of national significance. I welcome the fact that it will be treated as such, but I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that that means that the matter will be expedited and that we can make progress.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I merely wish to say how pleased I have been to be associated with the excellent campaign for Stratford, from fairly early on. It was extremely well run. I enjoyed my visit to the site at an early stage. It has probably changed since then, but it is a remarkably good place. When I joined the campaign, there was no need for the Conservative party to find another Stratford to distract attention from the other one, which has been somewhat of an embarrassment to us.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for Transport for writing into the Bill that which I and my hon. Friends requested should be there, at the second sitting of the Standing Committee. When the request that Stratford should be named in the Bill was put to the Minister, he replied that it was not possible to do so because it would delay the passage of the Bill by introducing a rehybridising amendment. Will the Minister clarify what has changed in the comparatively short space of time since 7 March when I requested that Stratford be named in the Bill?

Mr. David Chidgey: I shall make a brief point about new clause 4(2) (b). Can the Minister assure us that the trains will be able to use the whole length of the new line, including the section between Ripple lane and the junction with the North London line north of St. Pancras? That would facilitate access for freight to and from the west coast main line. I appreciate that that is a detailed point, and if the Minister is not able to answer now, I should appreciate an answer later.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I have a query about new clause 4(2) (b), which deals with the connection with the west coast main line. I am delighted that such a connection is to be provided, but why was that not made explicit in the competition overview so that all the companies bidding for the contract to build the link could make specific proposals for the connection between St. Pancras and the west coast main line? It is clear from the Minister's statements, and from the letter that we received from the chairman of London and Continental Railways, that that was one of the measures that tipped the balance in favour of awarding the contract to London and Continental.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): My rather wet visit to Stratford did not dampen


my enthusiasm for the project. I can now confess that for quite some time I was a closet supporter of Stratford; subsequently, I have been able to come out.
The new clauses and amendments have three major effects. First, they make it explicit that the provision of the new station at Stratford and the dual-track connection with the North London line, for which no powers are granted in the Bill but which are none the less contained in the development agreement, are part of the works for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can make payments to London and Continental under the terms of the agreement. Secondly, the measures deal with the Transport and Works Act powers for Stratford station. Inserting in the Bill the provision that the scheme will be treated as a scheme of national significance will enable the proposal to be dealt with on the Floor of both Houses before the principle can be approved. What will remain will be local public inquiries to deal with the more general planning issues; but the principle will have been decided by the House—assuming that the House endorses it—on the basis that the scheme is of national significance.
Thirdly, the measures bring the regulatory regime for Stratford station into line with those for Ebbsfleet and St. Pancras stations. That could not have been done in the original text of the Bill, because at that stage Stratford was not included.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) asked what had changed between the second sitting of the Committee and the end of our proceedings. If we had included explicit powers to build Stratford station in the Bill subsequent to Second Reading and consideration in the Select Committee, that would have rehybridised the Bill, and would have caused delay. In a later debate in Committee, I gave an undertaking to the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) and others that I would seek ways in which Stratford station could be brought within the terms of the Bill, but in a way that would not rehybridise. That is what we have done in the new clauses and amendments.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) asked about freight. It is a requirement for the link to be built in such a way that freight can run on the line, but it is not a requirement that it shall run on the line. I take that to mean the whole line, but, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, it is a fairly detailed point. I will write to him and place a copy of the letter in the Library; that will enable me to go into the details.
I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Timms: May I ask the Minister a simple question? Does the designating of Stratford station and the connection with the west coast main line as "of national significance" mean that they will be presented as Government proposals when the Transport and Works Act procedure is reached?

Mr. Watts: No. They will have to be presented by London and Continental Railways, as promoters of the project. However, a motion will be proposed to the House by a Minister of the Crown—presumably my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or me—and the House will then be able to decide on the principle.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 5

RELATED WORKS: APPLICATION OF SECTION 9 OF THE TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992

'.—(1) If an application under section 6 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (application for an order under section 1 of that Act) is made by a relevant undertaker, section 9 of that Act (procedure where the Secretary of State considers an application relates to proposals of national significance) shall have effect in relation to the application with the insertion at the end of subsections (1) and (2) of "or relate to, or to matters ancillary to, the construction of works which are related works for the purposes of section [Expenditure in connection with securing construction of works] of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996".

(2) In subsection (1) above, the reference to a relevant undertaker is to a person who, under section 32 above, is the nominated undertaker for any purpose of section 1(1) above, so far as relating to the rail link.'.—[Mr. Watts.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 6

TRAFFIC FLOW

'.—(1) The nominated undertaker shall in constructing the scheduled works have regard to easing the flow of passengers and freight traffic from the entire United Kingdom to and through the Channel Tunnel;

(2) The nominated undertaker shall, in relation to the works authorised by Part I of the Act, operate and use them in such a way as to ease the flow of passengers and freight traffic from the entire United Kingdom to and through the Channel Tunnel;

(3) The Secretary of State shall require the nominated undertaker to provide him with such information as he deems necessary to show how subsections (1) and (2) above have been satisfied and shall lay before Parliament an annual report on the steps taken by the nominated undertaker to comply with those provisions.'.—[Mr. Allen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Graham Allen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am here in the stead of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), because I understand that his wife is about to give birth. I believe that they are hoping for a girl. A rumour is sweeping the House that she will not be named Clare, but that may be just Tea Room gossip.
I am conscious of being a new boy among all the old lags of the Select and Standing Committees, but one thing is obvious to me. It is appropriate, on the day when the Government have officially conceded that they have no transport strategy—in a Green Paper published an hour and a half ago—that Opposition Members should raise the issue of how to integrate the channel tunnel rail line into our United Kingdom transport strategy in both regions and nations. By the end of the month, our own transport policy document will be in the public domain, and we hope that everyone with an interest in transport will then see a return of the sense of strategy that is so sadly lacking in the Green Paper.
The channel tunnel represents a huge opportunity for regions outside the south-east, opening up new markets for British business, attracting increasing numbers of


visitors and tourists to the British Isles and offering an efficient means of travel to and from the continent. What Ebbsfleet and Stratford can do for the south-east must be replicated in every other region. I should say immediately how much we welcome Stratford's inclusion in the plan, and pay tribute to the hard work of my hon. Friends in Committee and throughout many months of lobbying before that stage was reached.
On the very day when I stopped dealing with super-highways and the media and took up the transport brief, I addressed a conference in Northampton. I had been in my post for all of 40 minutes when my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) sat down next to me and began lobbying me about Stratford international. My hon. Friend is someone who wastes no time, and he and his east end colleagues have succeeded in their campaign, thanks largely to the energy that they put into it. Now that they have won their battle, hon. Members representing other regions—Scotland, Wales and all the English regions; the east midlands, in my case—must make their case with similar force and I hope, given a new Government, with similar success.
The tunnel also provides a unique opportunity for us to transfer more road and air traffic to rail, reducing road and airspace congestion and supporting sustainable development. Up to now, the debate has focused on the relatively minor aspect of the link between the tunnel and London, but it should now become wider. When a new Government come to power, we will ensure that our whole transport planning structure—from our national transport framework, through the regional transport strategies, to our local transport plans—reflects the need to exploit the rail links with the tunnel. That will be good news for the regions, but also for London and Continental, which will be able to capitalise on such developments.
Failure to capitalise on the tunnel would threaten our regions with increasing isolation on the edge of Europe, reduced ability to compete in the single market, less inward investment and the prospect of United Kingdom firms being attracted to mainland Europe for expansion or relocation. Economic imbalance between the south-east of England and the rest of the country could then widen.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Can I take it from what the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Opposition Front Bench thinks that the high-speed rail link should be used for freight trains?

Mr. Allen: I shall come to that later. There is certainly room for increasing freight and the high-speed rail link could assist in that.
The Bill does not refer to the potential benefit of the tunnel to the United Kingdom as a whole. That may be mentioned in the contracts, but Parliament has not been allowed to scrutinise them. For the regions fully to benefit from the tunnel, we should like to see not only ministerial and company assurances but a duty in the Bill on the statutory undertaker to build and operate the link in a way that will require the free flow of passengers and freight between the tunnel and the regions.
5 pm
We should not simply be delivering people to London to make the connection, causing extra air and traffic movements towards and in the capital. The Government

have been slow to promote other possibilities. It was left to London and Continental Railways to add to the plans the small but all-important usable link north of King's Cross that would allow a connection to the west coast line. We commend LCR for that addition. That company is currently excluded from many of the regulator's powers which could be used to insist on the provision of regional services. That will have to be reviewed by an incoming Government.
As far as we can discover, current proposals for a regional service are limited and unsatisfactory and cannot realistically compete with air travel for people in the regions. The current rail timetable suggests that it will take nine hours 15 minutes to go from Glasgow to Paris and five hours 45 minutes to go from Manchester to Paris. In addition, the frequency of the service is still unclear. Those problems must be addressed if the regional links are to compete with air travel.
Ticketing must also be addressed. Never has so great a service been marketed so badly. Having to force one's fare upon a reluctant Eurostar must become a thing of the past. When it does, regional usage will be able to take off. Arrangements need to be put in place to provide a speedy and satisfactory freight service. Sir Alastair Morton was quoted recently in The Guardian as saying that in 1993 the railways had planned to transport 3.3 million tonnes of freight through the tunnel in 1995. It managed only 1.3 million tonnes—barely half the objective.
To ensure that constraints are not replicated when the high-speed link is built, it is important that the requirements of freight and passengers from the regions are taken into account from the beginning, and that the finished link has the capacity to cope with increased future flows. The Minister may wish to comment on the reports in yesterday's Evening Standard which, ironically, implied that one of the first impacts of the channel tunnel rail link will result from giving away the King's Cross lands because three cement and construction companies are to be evicted from their sites there, resulting in a massive transfer of freight from rail to road.
That is exactly the opposite direction to the one that we should seek to take. Even that has been given a nod in the weak Green Paper that was published today. Are these just press reports or will the Minister make it clear that this is not an unfortunate early precedent on these large sites at King's Cross? If those companies are thrown off their sites, it will massively increase the number of heavy goods vehicles trundling in and out of the centre of the capital.
The linkage to the regions underlines what we mean by integrated transport. Regional services should be able to join the high-speed link directly without complex manoeuvring and without having to enter congested areas of London's suburban railways. The link needs to be built in a way that will make that possible from the moment that it is operational. Direct services to the regions beyond London are essential, and the Government should use this opportunity to instigate and promote new developments, including innovative service patterns that will allow domestic and international passengers to use the continental trains, as happens on the continent. They should allow the extension of the London-Paris/Brussels trains to other UK cities.
Currently, domestic passengers are not allowed to board any train whose ultimate destination is outside the UK. That means that load factors will fall alarmingly as


trains travel northwards through England and that frequencies will be poor. The solution has to be Paris/Brussels-London regional through trains, and attempts to develop services under present operating conditions could lead to the raising and the dashing of expectations and could have little impact on the regional economies of England, Wales and Scotland.
Initially, there will be an inadequate rolling stock to deliver a frequent service on that basis, but when the link has been completed and international trains are operating to St. Pancras, an intermediate approach could be adopted whereby Eurostar trains, Eurostar regional trains and InterCity trains would all run to St. Pancras and a gradual process of train renewal, or the adaptation of the capital-to-capital trains, would eventually facilitate through running.
Regional passenger services should be able to use the high-speed link at all times and should not be held up by slower freight trains. That requires that the construction of the route takes account of the needs of both types of traffic. There must be sufficient rolling stock to provide an attractive and competitive service, and the timetables must offer convenience and must compete with the airlines. The Minister may wish to comment on the class 92 position and say when approval for that class type is likely to be granted.
In the context of freight services, the Minister may wish to speak about security because, as he knows, the freight industry is deeply concerned about the great delays caused by security on approaching the channel tunnel from the UK side. No one underestimates the need for security clearance, but perhaps the Minister has had some thought about whether the process could be tightened up so that freight does not suffer further delays.
Railtrack's current track access charging regime is inhibiting private and public rail companies and will have a detrimental effect on the efforts of London and Continental Railways. It should not be allowed to price freight off the railways by making them uncompetitive with road, sea or air. Freight services to the continent, including trainload intermodal, piggyback and wagonload should give maximum choice to customers. By strengthening the powers of the regulator, Labour will make sure that rail access charges are fair and will encourage a greater shift towards rail and the development of the regional potential of the links to the tunnel.
The development of the high-speed link should take forward the European Union's vision of trans-European high-speed rail networks for passengers and combined road-rail or sea-rail transport for freight. Our amendments place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that that is done. Rather than warm words and assurances from the Minister and the company, we want to see these matters in the Bill.
Taxpayers in Scotland, Wales and the English regions are providing the massive funding for the channel tunnel rail link. We shall come to that in the next debate. The Government should look after their interests by taking full account of the wider economic and environmental opportunities that are offered by the tunnel because, much as we commend the additions to the channel tunnel rail-link in respect of the south-east, it belongs to

everybody in Britain. We have paid for it, and we wish the regions and nations of the United Kingdom to benefit from it.

Mr. George Stevenson: May I impress on the Government how important the new clause is? There is a perception in the UK as a whole that this tremendously important project is viewed as a south-east project and will primarily benefit that region. For the purposes of the argument, whether that perception is correct is neither here nor there. I wish to give the example of the west midlands to illustrate the strength of feeling about the vital need for the link, from the beginning, to be constructed and operated to benefit directly the countries of the UK.
The west midlands faces two significant problems in terms of rail links and the connection to the high-speed link and, therefore, the channel tunnel. The first is the state of the west coast main line. I shall not go into that in this debate because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would probably stop me, but it is important that, if the Government are, as we hope, determined that the benefits of the link are spread throughout the country, the present infrastructure is examined carefully. There are particular problems in terms of the west coast main line, although we look forward to improvements in, we hope, the not too distant future—there have been considerable delays.
The second problem faced by the west midlands and, especially, Stoke-on-Trent, part of which I have the honour to represent, involves services operating through the channel tunnel. There is a service from Manchester, but its operators have decided that trains will stop only at Stafford. That is of considerable concern to us as it gives a worrying idea of what the operators' approach—taken because of commercial pressures—will be once the link is up and running. That approach could be to the detriment of the regions. It has been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).
At present, there is one stop at Stafford and none at Stoke-on-Trent, which we are rightly lobbying and arguing about. That region in north Staffordshire has a population of some 350,000, who, because of a decision by the operators, have no direct access to the train services through the channel tunnel. We hope that that will change and that the advent of the link will have a beneficial and positive effect, but the evidence is not encouraging.
Unless the Bill includes an obligation—the new clause seeks to do this—both on the builder and operator of the link and, through the Secretary of State for Transport, on the Minister to ensure not only that the regions are seen to benefit, but that the construction of the scheme is designed to benefit the south-east and the other regions, the fear is that commercial pressures, which will certainly exist, will mean that the regions will not benefit, which I am sure no hon. Member wants.
The example that I am giving of the west midlands and Stoke-on-Trent in particular is a stark and reasonable one which causes concern. At present, the operators are simply, as it were, putting their toe into the water—they are seeing how the service works. If it does not work, through inconvenience or whatever, they will not continue it. If the loadings are such that, because of the way in which services operate, getting to London is one commercial proposition, but getting north of London is another, services that we hope will develop investment. business, industry and, I hope, employment will be jeopardised at the outset.
5.15 pm
I am sure that what I am about to say applies to many other regions throughout the UK, but it is reasonable for hon. Members, when making a case, to use their best knowledge and that tends to be of the constituencies that they represent. I do not want to argue this from a purely parochial view, but, obviously, I am not qualified to speak about other regions. The position as it affects Stoke-on-Trent, however, is possibly a microcosm of the dangers that we will face if the benefits of the high-speed link and the channel tunnel are not available to the rest of the UK, which will happen unless the Government are minded to accept the new clause.
The region was built on mineworking and the pottery industry. There is now hardly any mineworking, but I will not go into that—we all know the reasons for it. It is important, however, to say two things about the pottery industry and the efforts to bring investment into the region, about which the Minister knows full well because he has been there on two or three occasions, for which I am grateful.
First, the pottery industry depends for its survival on its exports. It does not sell much of its stuff in the domestic market. Historically, it has always had a clear export-driven philosophy and it is seeking to develop export markets, which have traditionally been in the United States of America and in Europe. It is willing to make that investment so that it can use its undoubted expertise in exporting its quality products to Europe. Unless it has an opportunity to maximise transport links, especially through the high-speed link, those investment plans and the attempt to capture more of the European market will be put in jeopardy. Heaven knows, like many other regions, we desperately need that investment.
Secondly, significant efforts have been made, through the Government, the European Union, local authorities and private money, in the region. There is potential for development and investment of many millions of pounds. Chambers of trade, which I know the Minister has met recently, businesses in the region and potential investors continually ask not only what the road links are like—and, as the Minister knows, we are working on that—but what the rail links are like and how they can gain maximum access to the high-speed link and the channel tunnel so that they can seek to exploit the European market.
At present, we are not in a position to give as positive a response to that as we would like. Unless the new clause is included in the Bill, for the foreseeable future, we shall not be in a position to give such a positive response and, more important, we may send the wrong signals to potential investors in regions north of London.
I hope that the Minister understands that I am not discussing a parochial issue, but using the best knowledge that I have, which is of my constituency, to illustrate, I hope, how important it is that this obligation is included in the Bill. I hope that the Government will accept it as such.

Mr. Chidgey: I shall not revisit some of the arguments made earlier in the debate—I would not try the patience of the House that much—but I must make a couple of points.
I believe that there is a good deal of sense behind the main thrust of the new clause, particularly in relation to linking the channel tunnel rail link to the remainder of the United Kingdom rail network. What is particularly

important is the linking for large-gauge freight trains to and from the west coast main line. It is fundamental to what the link can achieve. It also brings in the entire context of making sure that Railtrack does facilitate freight trains coming from the channel tunnel rail link. I believe strongly, as we have said in the House before, that there is a need to regulate Railtrack so that it encourages freight business. That business should be encouraged with far lower access charges than is now the case. I believe that those charges should be at wear and tear costs only if we are to achieve a shift of freight from road to rail.
Equally important is the operation of through passenger services from the channel tunnel rail link, particularly to the east coast and west coast main lines. Of course it would be totally unreasonable for the nominated undertaker to be expected to provide facilities and links for through operations unless, in turn, Railtrack was playing its part in upgrading the remainder of the network. That is precisely why, in the national interest, the Liberal Democrats wish to take back control of Railtrack at an early date and regulate its operation with a series of strategic measures. It underlines the need for a national transport strategy, which was so lacking in today's transport Green Paper.

Mr. Watts: The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) raised the issue of the cement batching plants. We gave an undertaking to the Select Committee that we would secure suitable replacement premises for the plants. The Government will comply fully with that undertaking. A lease that is consistent with that undertaking is currently under discussion with all the parties concerned and I understand that we hope that it will be concluded and granted before 24 May—obviously as speedily as possible.
The Government have always recognised the importance of spreading the benefits of international services throughout the United Kingdom. It was always part of the reference design that there would be connections to both the east coast and west coast main lines. One of the attractions of the bid from London and Continental Railways—the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) referred to it earlier when he chided the Government for their base design—is the strong emphasis that it has placed on developing the market for international services, not just in the south-east but to the rest of the country.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) made what I have always thought is an important point, which is that this should not be looked upon as a scheme that is intended to benefit just the south-east—of course, it will benefit the areas of north Kent and around Stratford because of regeneration benefits. London and Continental's proposals to enhance the project in connection with the Stratford station and the dual-track link to the west coast main line exist because of its intention of developing business north of London.
The main reason for favouring a station at Stratford is that it knocks a further 30 minutes off journey times north of London. Today, a journey from Birmingham to Paris—to use another part of the country—would take five hours using a through train. With the combination of the new high-speed link and the dual-track connection and using Stratford as a London stop instead of taking every train into St. Pancras, there would be a one-hour saving,


making the journey time from Birmingham to Paris about four hours. That saving of one hour will apply to every destination north of London. We have already approved new clauses and amendments which facilitate the provision of those enhancements to the service.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North mentioned ticketing arrangements. I understand that one of the early intentions of London and Continental Railways, as soon as it has operational control of Eurostar, is to improve the marketing, particularly of the interim services operating as feeder services north of London. Before today's debate I was in Shropshire visiting Gobowen station, which has just had its waiting room and ticket office refurbished. The station is run as a business venture by a local school. I was told that it was able to sell tickets for Eurostar and to any other part of the United Kingdom rail network.

Mr. Allen: Is it better than Waterloo?

Mr. Watts: It may well be. I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman wants a ticket for Eurostar he should try the Morton Hall travel service operating from Gobowen to see whether it can provide a better service.
I agree that the better marketing of the service is crucial and that is one of the reasons why it is part of the development agreement that European passenger services are transferred to the nominated undertaker so that the business can be built up as early as possible.

Mr. Allen: Is London and Continental Railways free to go ahead with taking over the ticketing arrangements? There were some question marks because of the intervention of the European Union on that matter.

Mr. Watts: I would not describe it as intervention. Part of the process involves formal approval on state aid and competition grounds. That must be cleared before the formal handover can take place.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North asked about class 92 locomotives. They are currently being operated on a trial basis on the Swanley-Maidstone line. That is to ensure that the modifications that have been carried out allow them to operate safely without interfering with signalling and so on. It is British Rail's intention that the frequency of use of those locomotives should build up through the year until they are operating all the freight trains on that line. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we want to get those modern locomotives in proper operation as soon as possible, but I am sure that he will agree that as a prerequisite we need to be sure that that can be done safely and without any interference with signalling and control.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the channel tunnel freight security regime. In the autumn I announced some modifications to the regime, particularly in relation to—I forget the precise term—security-cleared freight forwarders, which were welcomed by the industry. We will remain in close touch with the freight industry and if we can make further modifications that are consistent with providing the necessary security for the tunnel, we are prepared to adopt a flexible approach. We want to see more freight on rail in general and operating to continental destinations in particular.
As I said earlier, the base requirement of the project is that it is capable of taking freight, but it is not a requirement that freight should be operated on it. Generally, it has been considered that the main benefit to freight flows will be the train paths on the existing network which will be freed by the transfer of the international passenger services on to the new infrastructure.
I am not aware of any great enthusiasm for being able to operate high-speed freight. Over the longer distances to continental destinations, freight trains travelling at conventional speeds can have a significant time advantage over road haulage. It is more likely that, apart from low weight-high value goods, perhaps some of those produced in Stoke-on-Trent which may be carried on high-speed passenger trains, freight will develop on the capacity that is released on the domestic network. We have always wanted to keep that option open and that is why there is a requirement for the freight links to be provided.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend and I have exchanged correspondence on the matter, but it remains of concern, first, that the curves on the line are not designed for freight trains. A serious question is still hanging over that design. They do not, for example, conform to either German or French standards. Secondly, the big freight loops that are being built in my neighbouring constituency of Ashford are static. If he is really as doubtful as he seems to be about the likelihood of freight being carried on the line, is the building of such freight loops not a huge additional land take and expense?

Mr. Watts: We have always thought that it is important to keep open the option of freight on that infrastructure. That is why we have made provision for the freight loops.
A further point in considering what sort of services should be using the capacity concerns the domestic services that will also operate on the high-speed link. Thirty minutes will also be knocked off journey times for commuters travelling into London from parts of Kent. Right hon. and hon. Members would probably agree that it is more beneficial for domestic passenger flows to be able to move more conveniently and quickly and that they should have priority over the haulage of freight on the new high-speed link. We have therefore reserved eight train paths an hour in peak periods for those domestic services, which will bring considerable benefits.

Sir David Mitchell: If the line will potentially carry freight—it will certainly be used for passengers—a far heavier infrastructure will have to be built to enable it to take the weight of freight trains than would be required for either high-speed passenger trains or local passenger trains. Is my hon. Friend really telling the House that he will incur those substantial costs without knowing whether the line will be used for freight?

Mr. Watts: The minimum requirement, which is embodied in the development agreement, is that the link must have the capacity to take freight traffic and that the passing loops must be provided. I am perhaps not as well versed in the technicalities of rail freight and its operation as my hon. Friend, but if it is essential that there is some greater strength required in the infrastructure to enable such operation, and if it incurs greater cost, my answer to him must be yes.
I share the sentiments of a number of Opposition Members, particularly those of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, that we must ensure that this major project delivers benefits to regions of England and, indeed, other countries in the United Kingdom, not only the south-east. The private sector promoter has identified market opportunities in order to do that and has proposed modifications to the original design, to which we have agreed, which he considers enhances the overall project. The requirements that the new clause would place on the promoter are therefore unnecessary.
As there is no intention that, beyond the general regime of track access, freight facility grants, and so on, which we have in place to support rail freight, there should be any general subsidy to the operator, it would be wrong to impose on him a requirement to develop plans for developing freight services that might not be commercially viable and for which he would receive no public sector support. The new clause is unnecessary and I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North will not press it to a vote.

Mr. Allen: Opposition Members made the point that not only are there commercial opportunities in the channel tunnel rail link for all regions—that is why London and Continental has made those links—but there are service and economic opportunities. No doubt, those points will be taken up by my hon. Friends in the other place, and with the assurances on the specific points, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 7

RAIL ASSETS NOT TO BE TRANSFERRED

'.—(1) No Minister of the Crown shall transfer to a rail link undertaker ownership of any asset which is owned by the Crown which is a rail asset.

(2) In this section "rail asset" includes any railway asset or additional railway asset, any ancillary service, any premises (including any station), any locomotive, any network, any railway facility, any railway vehicle, any rolling stock or any track.

(3) In subsection (2) above, the terms used shall be construed in accordance with section 83 (Interpretation of Part I) of the Railways Act 1993.'.—[Mr. Allen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Allen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 11, in clause 30, page 16, line 32, at beginning insert
'Subject to the provisions of section (Rail assets not be transferred):

Mr. Allen: In years to come it will be judged that the channel tunnel rail link was a vital, exciting and very welcome scheme. Whatever unnecessary delays and sordid sweeteners have accompanied it, the Opposition will repeat the view that the high-speed link is essential and will considerably help economic regeneration throughout the United Kingdom and not just the south-east—especially when we have a Government who will seize the opportunities to which I referred in an earlier debate.
It is almost incredible that the present Government have somehow managed to contrive a losing position for the taxpayer out of such a magnificent concept—first, by delay, and secondly by the financing of the project. Delay has, of course, caused incalculable loss. I do not mean because of the increased expenditure required to complete the link; I mean, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) said in Committee, because of the years of use that have been lost by the project not going ahead when it could have done in the late 1980s. In addition, there is the loss of what one might term prestige. We look like a backward nation in Europe that was unable to seize the opportunities of the channel tunnel once it was built, not least when compared with our friends and neighbours across the channel in France, who moved so quickly to seize the opportunities and advantages offered by it.
As for the financial aspects of the deal, never in the history of privatisations in the past few years under the Government has there been a sweetener as large as the one that we are about to nod through today. There is no question but that seven years ago Conservative dogma determined that it was unacceptable to use any public money to get the project off the ground. Yet we know that the project could have been ours for the ludicrously small sum of £1 billion just a few years ago in 1989.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would have accepted that bargain basement scheme, which would have cost the environment and people in Kent and east London dearly if it had been railroaded through with no consideration to the environmental interests of local residents?

Mr. Allen: There is no question but that the final scheme would have been very different from the one initially proposed by Trafalgar House and British Rail, and—one hopes—those considerations would have been taken into account.
Although the Conservative party may not admit it, I hope that the lesson that all important large-scale transport projects are massively subsidised has been learnt and that the pipe dream of a totally privately financed scheme of such magnitude has been dispelled once and for all by the channel tunnel rail link. I hope that we have matured enough to move on from the "private good, public bad" sloganising, and that serious discussion is now about the form of that subsidy and, consequently, the value for money achieved for the taxpayer, which will need to be in even greater detail as we approach a change of Government.
The Conservatives' chosen form of subsidy is a £1.4 billion hand-out, plus a free gift of taxpayers' assets of £3 billion and the writing off of a loan to Eurostar of £1.3 billion—a grand total of £5.7 billion for something that we could have had for £1 billion in 1989. Some people question those figures. It is impossible to tell whether they are accurate. Some people think that we are understating the subsidy. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) has followed the matter closely and will no doubt allude to it later. The cash subsidy is £1.4 billion at net present value. By the time we come to pay it in real money over the period involved, it could approach £2 billion. Equally, some people think that the profits to be made out of


development lands, not least at King's Cross, will be far higher than the original estimates that were made when the deal was announced.
That is not a clever twist of creative accounting; the assets are as much real money as our income tax payments are real. Anyone who has ever bought a rail ticket or paid a penny in income tax has helped to build and buy the Eurostar trains that are being given away, the station properties at King's Cross and Waterloo and the plum development lands at King's Cross, Stratford and elsewhere. We are not discussing a tiny amount of money; £5.7 billion pounds is equivalent to almost 3p on the standard rate of income tax or asking every family to pay another £370 on its tax bill to fund this Conservative incompetence.
The £1.4 billion cash giveaway is roughly equivalent to the money that will be raised by the Government selling off virtually the whole of our rail network. We are getting nothing from privatising the rail network; we are giving the proceeds straight to London and Continental because the Government are desperate to carry out the PFI in this tack-handed way. To rub salt into the wounds, the Government's failure to clinch the deal in the late 1980s meant that the taxpayer had to build Waterloo international. That, too, has disappeared in the special "build one, get one free" offer to London and Continental.
Most remarkable of all, every one of the assets has been given away up front, before a single sleeper has been laid on the channel tunnel rail link. Only a Parliament doped by years of endemic privatisation sleaze would tolerate what the Government have done—and all because the Government could not admit that a public-private finance partnership was the way forward in the late 1980s, despite constant pressure from the Opposition and the hopes of many people not only from around the link, but from all the regions of England and from Scotland and Wales.
We blame the Conservative Government, not London and Continental. It is debatable whether the constituent parts of London and Continental—Halcrow, Virgin, National Express, Warburg, Bechtel and Systra—are happy with the "some in cash, some in kind" arrangement. They might well have preferred a straightforward private-public sector partnership and to have got on with the job in hand without the complications with the assets that come in its train.
All this gives the PFI a bad name in the same way that the design, build, finance and operate concept on our roads has begun to undermine the valuable concept of public-private initiative because of its complexity, lines of accountability, high borrowing costs, large mortgages for the taxpayer and high tendering overheads. Public-private initiatives are welcome, essential and indeed unavoidable as a way forward, not least for transport schemes, but they should be genuine partnerships assessed on their merits, and not clumsy devices to get assets off the public books or to produce income tax cuts today paid for by massive mortgages on future taxpayers.
After all that largesse, what guarantees are there that the job will be done? The Bill gives only outline permissive powers and the guarantee of completion rests on contractual obligations that may appear very different in four years' time. The Government have delayed the scheme so that there has been a massive spiralling of cost.

The incompetence and profligacy with our money almost defies comprehension. As we celebrate the construction of the high-speed link and work to make it effective for all our regions, we must never forget its tremendous costs. We will never forget the incompetence of the Government who incurred them.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I support new clause 7. I welcome the rail link, which is long overdue. If people knew the extent of the subsidy involved, they would choke on it. Public assets are being given away. It amounts to grand larceny. If it were not being done by the Government, the person responsible would be behind bars in Pentonville. Public assets are being gifted.
The story is full of ironies. One of the four bidders is Lord Parkinson, in his latest metamorphosis as chairman of Eurorail. In 1990, he vetoed a proposal by British Rail to construct the rail link. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, it is a matter of public record that the subsidy required then was £1.9 billion: a low-interest loan of £1 billion, capital grant of £500 million and an additional £400 million investment required by Network SouthEast. Now the Government are shovelling public money into the pockets of London and Continental as if there were no tomorrow. It will not be the people of Britain who own this magnificent new railway but the shareholders in London and Continental.
Lord Parkinson said at the time that it was not the Government's policy to subsidise the rail link and came out with this fantasy on 11 June 1990, when he said that it was
illegal for the Government to subsidise any fast tunnel link, on the ground that it would create unfair competition for ships, road freight and airlines."—[Official Report, 11 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 4.]
We have the same Government but a different situation. The most enormous subsidy is going to London and Continental. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North said, the outrage that people should feel is not being felt because of the diet of privatisation outrages. The Guardian on 4 March 1996 said:
It is only because we have been nurtured so long on the drip-feed of privatisation sleaze that people haven't been more outraged.
How true that is.
I shall deal with the specific figures. The straight cash subsidy, the so-called financial contribution, for a 68-mile long line is £1.4 billion. Railtrack is currently being floated, and all the pundits and commentators who know about such things tell us that that will raise about £1.7 billion. It was originally valued at about £6 billion, then the figure went down to £3 billion; now we are told that it is worth £1.7 billion.
What assets are we, the British people, losing in exchange for that £1.7 billion? First we shall lose 10,000 route-miles of permanent way, compared with an important rail link 68 miles long. Then 2,500 stations will go, plus 90 light maintenance depots, 40,000 bridges, viaducts and tunnels and, Railtrack tells us, 9,000 level crossings, with other bits and pieces. All that is to raise £1.7 billion. Even then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham. North said, £1.4 billion of that will be transferred seamlessly to the private sector company, London and Continental, to build 68 miles of fast link.
The fast link should have been built years ago, in 1989–90. It is a national disgrace that it still has not been built. When I was on the Select Committee we went to


France to see the TGV. It was a blur of light; we could not see the thing as it flashed across the plain in northern France. But over here in Kent there is a puffing Billy: it is a Eurostar train, but it wends its way to the channel portal at 40 or 50 mph. And that will continue until the fast link is built. It is a tragedy that the Government were so short-sighted—or rather, ideologically blinkered—that the line has not already been constructed.
Now for the great railway sell-off. The Opposition have calculated a total of £5.7 billion, and I think that that figure is right, but for the purposes of argument I shall concentrate on what the Government say the assets are worth. There is a big difference. All the commentators and journalists and economists without exception, including the Financial Times and all the business broadsheets, say that although the Opposition may have pitched the figure a bit high at £5.7 billion, no one believes the Government's subsidy figure, which I shall deal with in a moment, because it is too low.
Apart from the £1.4 billion, there are the King's Cross railway lands, with an existing use value of £5.8 million. When I asked the Minister a question, he said that the development value of those lands was £10.6 million. I am not a surveyor, but the King's Cross railway lands are within spitting distance of central London.
The Minister told me that the existing use value for the Stratford rail lands—they were valued as railway marshalling yards, although they would not really be worth anything for their existing use—was £15.2 million. He then told me that
the development value of the Lands excluding those parts required for the CTRL"—[Official Report, 14 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 721.]
was £12.5 million. Pull the other leg.

Mr. Watts: Like the hon. Gentleman, I am not a surveyor, but the estimates of the development value of the land were made for British Rail for the purposes of its accounts. They are not my estimates, but professional valuations.

Mr. Prentice: Yes, those may have been the valuations prior to development, but it takes nothing more than common sense to see what will happen. There will be a new international station at Stratford, all the traffic coming in from East Anglia and the rest of eastern England will funnel into Stratford, and the adjacent railway lands are ripe for development. The British Rail surveyors should be out of a job if they value them at £12.5 million. We are not talking about one or two acres, but 240 acres, with the King's Cross and Stratford lands combined.
There are more depots too—for instance, Manchester Longsight. I do not know it personally. I have not visited it, as I have visited Stratford and King's Cross, but I have been told that the historic cost valuation was £5.9 million. No other valuation was given, just a historic cost valuation. So we do not know what that might be worth.
Then there is the Eurostar maintenance depot at North Pole in north London. The Government say that that is worth £77.5 million. Again, that is a historic cost value. I do not know when British Rail acquired that depot. It may have been a long time ago, or relatively recently. No other valuation was given. Again, the Government relied on a historic cost valuation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North mentioned the Eurostar fleet of trains. The loss of that is something that people should gag on. The fleet of 11 trains, each one weighing about 800 tonnes—a marvellous triumph of engineering—is being gifted to London and Continental. The Government say that it is worth £380 million. Yet the debt write-off alone for Eurostar trains was £1.3 billion.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman is presenting a politician's judgment on the value of development land, as against the judgment of highly professional experts. He is also telling us that a politician's judgment of the value of carriages should be based not on their value but on the money spent on them. No business man would do that. The hon. Gentleman is making the fatal mistake that Labour politicians always make, especially when they are in government: they believe that politicians can carry out business better than business men. There is a very good example that he could look up—the Labour Government's attempt to set up the groundnut scheme.

Mr. Prentice: I should not have given way and allowed the hon. Gentleman to make that nonsensical intervention. We are talking about the valuation of public assets. As I told the Minister, every commentator who—unlike the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold)—knows anything about the subject, says that those public assets are being given away at a bargain basement price. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman could contain himself for a second, I want to mention a few more public assets and tell the House the Government's valuation of them.
The new Waterloo international station has just been built. It is a marvellous beautiful station—the gateway to London. Apparently its value is £136 million. Then there is Ashford international station. All the work that has been done in Ashford in preparation for the new link—

Mr. Stevenson: That was all public money.

Mr. Prentice: Of course it was all public money; £41 million was spent.
Back in London, the Government tell us that the valuation of St. Pancras station, on existing use, is £3.7 million. Then there are some little dribs and drabs with which I shall not weary the House—the land at Kensington Olympia, the marshalling yards and the 650 properties along the line, all of which will be given to London and Continental.
If we add all those together, using the Government's own figures, the valuation amounts to £621 million-worth of assets, which are all to be gifted to London and Continental. If we add the £1.4 billion contribution, that makes more than £2 billion. Yet all those years ago, the entire line could have been constructed and kept in public ownership for less.
The whole affair has been an absolute disgrace. The Government say that it is a triumph, but people out there are not so stupid. They realise that valuable public assets such as Railtrack and the assets associated with the channel tunnel rail link are being handed over. If any


other organisation were doing that, its managers would be behind bars, not sitting on the Front Bench. The sooner the Government are out of office, the better.

Mr. Chidgey: I listened to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) with great interest. There is considerable public concern about the details of this transaction, and to some extent I share that concern. I refer hon. Members back to the amendment and to the implications that it might have for the contractual arrangements that the Government may or may not have entered into for the channel tunnel rail link. I hope to get some clarification on this from the Minister.
The amendment may block the progress of the channel tunnel rail link. If the Government have entered into a contract with London and Continental, and if progress is blocked, where would we stand? If the amendment is passed and the Government abandon the contract, will London and Continental—having negotiated or won a contract for the channel tunnel rail link against significant competition and having struck a deal—be able to make a claim? Would we find ourselves faced with yet another huge bill to be met by the public purse?
6 pm
The key question is: under the terms of the contract that has been struck with London and Continental, what assurance do the public have that there is no escape clause allowing the contractor to abandon the project before its completion? I am most concerned to ensure that there is no opportunity in the contract for London and Continental to decide that the project is no longer a valid financial proposition or that it cannot possibly complete the project without further access to, or drain on, public funds.
I am anxious to see the project go ahead. It is many years late, as been most eloquently stated by many hon. Members. One could argue long and hard about the money that has been lost because of the delays. I want to see the project completed because it is most important to the transport strategy of this country. I also want an assurance that there is no way, having struck this deal, that the contractor can walk away from the project and leave the public holding the purse strings and shelling out more cash to make it viable and complete.

Ms Glenda Jackson: My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) gave an almost depressingly graphic elucidation of just what the Government have stolen from the people of this country in handing over the building of the channel tunnel rail link to the designated undertaker. All hon. Members will welcome the fact that, at long last, a designated undertaker has been selected, and that there is a possibility that a high-speed rail link will be entered into.
Over the past few years, we have watched the travesty of the Government changing their mind on which route the link should take and how it should be financed. That vacillation impacted disastrously on all those who live on the previously proposed routes—in Kent, in east London and in north-west London.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, this vital link for the nation could have been the nation's property years ago for a fraction of what

it will cost us now, in both cash and kind. I will not repeat just how much the Government have stolen from the public purse. I wish to refer to the enormous amount of national assets—in both cash and kind—that are being handed over to the designated undertaker, and, as far as I know, we still have no absolute guarantee that the line will be built.
We welcome the line—we have argued for it for long time. The nation is in desperate need of such a line. During the debate on the previous two amendments, we heard of the requirement that the designated undertaker must acknowledge that the channel tunnel rail link is not for the exclusive benefit of London and the south-east—it is of vital importance to the nation. The Minister, in his response to my hon. Friends in relation to those amendments, made no mention of the fact that profits—if they are made by the designated undertaker over the running of the channel tunnel rail link—should be invested in improving the lines that are north of what will be the channel tunnel rail link.
The Minister mentioned the station at Gobowen—a station that I know well from my childhood—as having something to do with the creation of a rail network fit for the 21st century, which the channel tunnel rail link surely must be. That would have been almost laughable—if it had not been so sad.
The ease with which we are supposed to accept the possibility that mere marketing techniques and improvement in selling tickets could open up the rest of the country, its people, its products, its business and its facilities to the channel tunnel rail link is patently absurd. The only thing that will open up the rest of the country to the facilities of the channel tunnel rail link is modernising the west coast main line—and there should be a requirement on London and Continental to assist in the vital investment to improve that line so that the country can be opened up.
In Committee, we said that it was almost impossible to define the cost—not only financially, but emotionally—of the delays, the vacillations and the changes of mind that have sat over this project year after year. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North referred to this on the previous amendment.
Hon. Members have referred to the King's Cross lands. A previous scheme for the building of the channel tunnel rail link said that the London terminus should he at King's Cross. While that project was still in that curious limbo that Conservative Governments call planning, there was a scheme between the London borough of Camden, British Rail and other owners of the lands at the time to enter into a scheme to regenerate the area—it is in desperate need of regeneration.
The work that had been engaged in by British Rail, by Camden and by other local authorities in the area for the regeneration of the King's Cross land was thrown out of the window overnight. Links that had been made with interested businesses, with financial houses and with architects as to how the land could be regenerated were scrapped and dustbinned. It would be possible to work out how much that waste of a scheme cost—and it became meaningless overnight.
There is still a great need for regeneration in that area of London—regrettably, there is a great need for regeneration over the whole United Kingdom after 17 years of Conservative misrule. National treasures such


as St. Pancras station and St. Pancras chambers—which was recently refurbished at a public cost of, I believe, £8 million; it now glows like a glorious rose on Euston road—could have played a vital and intrinsic role in the regeneration of this part of London, where it is desperately needed. They should not be handed over to London and Continental.
Unemployment in certain wards in that part of London is between 35 and 85 per cent. There is a vast preponderance of children under the age of five. Illness is infinitely higher in certain wards in that part of north-west London than in others.
If—as we are told—public money must be attracted, why should an investor be attracted to this project, to help in the regeneration of those parts of the King's Cross lands, when the Government have set the model that all one has to do is to wait? The Government have created the expectation that, because they cannot decide on a continuous plan, they will in effect decide to wash their hands of something that has become inordinately difficult—like a properly integrated public transport system and the construction of a channel tunnel rail link—and will declare, "Take it away from us. We can't handle this problem any more. Take all this money, take all these assets and tell us that you will, possibly, probably, hopefully, build us a line."
When the Secretary of State announced to the House that a designated undertaker had at last been selected, I asked him what guarantees there were that the British taxpayer was getting a good deal, and he replied—I paraphrase his response—that there would be an explanatory memorandum of the contracts with London and Continental. I understand that no one in the House is privileged to see the contracts in any detail or to discuss them, on grounds of commercial confidentiality. It is a curious commercial enterprise that is clouded in mystery in one direction.
It has been accepted, has it not, that the sharing of risk is essential in projects of so large a scale and so extraordinary a nature. We should surely look to a Government to protect the taxpayer from risk, so that—as has been said—should London and Continental not succeed in attracting the funds it claims it can to make the line a reality, not a dream, we do not suddenly find that the public purse is expected to fill up any possible hole.
There is an interesting definition of sharing of risks in the explanatory memorandum of the contract with London and Continental Railways. Paragraph 13 says:
The possible events to which the sharing of responsibility is to apply include the following:
changes in law or taxation which discriminate … against London and Continental Railways".
It is an interesting possibility, is it not, that London and Continental would appear, by that sentence, to be given fiscal powers. I should have thought that changes in law or taxation were the responsibility of Government—indeed, of the House—but apparently there is a sharing of responsibility.
Other possible events to which the sharing of responsibility is to apply are "war, rebellion and revolution". It is unlikely that London and Continental would be responsible for war, rebellion and revolution; regrettably, those are far too often the responsibility of Governments. As we know, the female former leader of

the Conservative party was responsible for taking this country to war twice. I would hardly have called that a genuine shared responsibility.
We are asked to believe that the vast amounts of public assets being handed to London and Continental are necessary to get the line built, which may be the case—I do not know how well or how toughly London and Continental argued its case—but that the handing over of those assets will guarantee for us, as a nation, that the line will be built.
We all agree that the line needs to be built. It is a scandal and a disgrace that there was such a long period between the time when it was first considered possible to build the line and its construction. It is doubly disgraceful that what we could have had a few years ago for £1.8 billion may have cost, on completion, more than £8 billion, and that none of the profits will be returned to the public sector.
Unquestionably, the line needs to be built, but there is doubt that it ever will be built. Let us hope that those doubts prove unfounded. Indisputably, the country, given the exchange of assets and cash, is not getting the best of all possible deals.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I should declare what I believe to be an interest, as chairman of the Conference on Training in Architectural Conservation, which has a professional interest in St. Pancras chambers, allowed by the appropriate authorities. I heard the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) describe it as "shining like a … rose". I am conscious that a considerable amount has been spent on making it appropriately watertight, but she would be exaggerating if she suggested that it had been returned to its former glory, for which considerable subsequent investment is still needed. The hazard of language such as she used is, I fear, that it devalues the effectiveness of some of the other things she said.

Mr. Watts: My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) is right. Although money has been spent on restoring the exterior of the St. Pancras buildings to a very attractive condition, anyone who has visited the interior knows that a great deal more money needs to be spent to bring that into any—

Ms Glenda Jackson: The point that I was making was clearly about the exterior of the building. Despite the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), when I make comparison now between the exterior colour of that building and the colour that I knew it to be only a few years ago, I stand firm in my belief that it now glows like a rose in Euston road.

Mr. Watts: The hon. Lady has made her own point.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on getting to the nub of the problem with the new clause. The new clause goes to the heart of the channel tunnel rail link competition. It would prevent the transfer of European Passenger Services Ltd. and other assets to London and Continental Railways, and in so doing would wreck the basis on which the project is proceeding.
The transfer of those assets was assumed in the promoters' bid for Government support, and the removal of that part of the equation would lead to a corresponding and massive increase in the taxpayer's contribution. It would seriously damage the viability of the project, and we would return to the position that we were in in 1993, before the competition was launched.
Opposition Members appear to have overlooked the fact that the majority of the assets being transferred are an integral part of what will be the high-speed link, and are necessary to its proper operation.

Mr. Allen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Watts: I would rather make a little more progress.

Mr. Allen: On that point?

Mr. Watts: I give way.

Mr. Allen: The Minister rightly said that there may well be a stronger argument about assets that are integral to the project, but many of the 240 acres of King's Cross lands surely cannot be put in that arena. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) was chided from the Conservative Benches for saying that the £126 million valuation—

Mr. Gordon Prentice: No—£12.6 million.

Mr. Allen: I thank my hon. Friend. He was chided for saying that a valuation of £12.6 million was rather modest. A scheme was proposed in the 1980s to take over those lands and develop them, and even in those days it was a £5 billion scheme. Now the Government are giving away those assets for £12 million.

Mr. Watts: In fact, the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) mentioned several operational assets. He mentioned North Pole depot, the Longsight depot at Manchester, and Waterloo international station. Those could have substantial development values only if they were not used for the purposes of a railway.
The hon. Gentleman sounded like the most rampant of property speculators. All these matters were debated in considerable detail in Standing Committee. I gathered then—and it has been confirmed today—that Labour Members are not entirely at one with our proposal for funding the project. Nonetheless, our approach to the competition produced high-calibre bidders, and we reached an extremely good deal with London and Continental Railways that minimises the taxpayer's contribution and maximises the benefits of the channel tunnel rail link to the nation.
I shall deal first with the cash contribution of £1.4 billion from the public sector. A substantial part of that sum is a charge for the domestic capacity that we have secured in order to run domestic commuter services. The money will be paid over a long period, and it may result in corresponding revenue to the Government from train operators that operate services on the link. It is not an up-front contribution: it will be spread over a number of years when the link is in operation.
I can answer in part the question from the hon. Member for Eastleigh, who asked how we will guarantee that the line will be built and that the promoter will not walk away from the project. Not a single penny of the lump sum capital contribution will be paid until the promoter has incurred 68 per cent. of the project's outturn cost. If the promoter must put up so much of his own money before receiving a single penny of taxpayers' money, he will need to have very good reasons for not seeing it through.

Mr. Stevenson: The Minister has said that the £1.4 billion will be paid over a long period. Will he say whether that is an absolute figure? In other words, is there a ceiling on the figure, so that it cannot be increased over time?

Mr. Watts: The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) referred to the summary of the terms of the development agreement and certain events that would trigger a sharing of costs, or allow costs to fall on the Government. Clearly, that could lead to an increase over and above the £1.4 billion.
For example, if a Government—for some perverse reason, as the hon. Lady mentioned—introduced tax provisions that discriminated against the company, it would give rise to a further payment by way of compensation. With that one proviso, I can confirm that the amounts in the development agreement are the sums that will be paid over a considerable period.

Mr. Allen: I thank the Minister for giving way again. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) is not allowed to look at the contracts and examine the real details. After applying pressure in Committee, we were permitted to see the explanatory memorandum; but we have no insight into what appears in the contracts. The explanatory memorandum says that there could be changes in the amounts payable if there are changes to the project ordered by the Government or if there are variations in the draft agreement. Virtually any changes would trigger increased payments.
I refer the Minister also to the fact that the £1.4 billion payment is calculated at net present value. When it comes to be paid, the real amount will be nearer to £2 billion. Ministers are bandying about £600 million as if it were nothing.

Mr. Watts: There is nothing unusual in expressing contributions to a capital project—particularly a long-running project—in net present value. We have evaluated the benefits of the project in the same terms.
I must correct the hon. Gentleman on another point. The explanatory memorandum was produced not because of pressure applied in the Standing Committee. In announcing his decision, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he would place in the Library the explanatory memorandum summarising the main terms of the agreement.
Some very odd figures have been bandied about this afternoon. We heard the old chestnut about delivering an alternative scheme for either £1 billion or £1.9 billion—Opposition Members have advanced two different figures. That is a very different scheme, which would have pursued a highly unpopular route into London through the south, and involved much more tunnelling.
Hon. Members have argued persistently and effectively for the construction of a station at Stratford. Stratford would not have been part of the project unless it took a very odd route through the south of London, around to the east and then back to the terminal. Therefore, all the regeneration benefits that have been rightly applauded would not have been part of the scheme.
As to the value attributed to the assets to be transferred, the hon. Member for Pendle quoted correctly from the information that I have supplied to him through answers to parliamentary questions. The assets transferred amount to £600 million in accounts values, or a little more if one substitutes for existing use value the development value of the two areas of railway land.
The more fanciful evaluations that Opposition Members have tried to place upon the development value of the land depend upon one other important factor: that someone has completed the new high-speed link and that it is operating successfully. Unless that occurs, the value cannot be enhanced further. Even if one were to try to estimate that value, figures of £3 billion, £5 billion and so on are completely fanciful.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: rose—

Mr. Watts: No, I shall not give way, as I have done so a number of times. We have had a fairly lengthy debate, and I wish to reply to it as speedily as possible.
As I explained in reply to expressions of concern about the development of services to the north of London, a critical part of the strategy is that the promoter should take control of Eurostar services at the earliest possible date and promote them. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate sneered at the idea that better marketing could increase passenger numbers. I think that she will find that marketing is crucial.

Ms Glenda Jackson: rose—

Mr. Watts: No, I shall not give way again; I have given way to the hon. Lady twice already. She should not be insulted by my quoting her words back at her. The hon. Lady must wait and see whether marketing improves the performance of the service.
Hon. Members must understand that, if the new clause were added to the Bill, it would wreck the whole project. It would involve either a massive additional sum by way of taxpayer subsidy or the total abandonment of the project as a joint public sector-private sector scheme. The alternative is probably one that Opposition Members would favour—a scheme funded entirely out of the taxpayers' pockets.
We know that one hon. Lady would be very happy to pay more taxes in order to fund that scheme or any others, but I suspect that her view is not universally shared by her colleagues. The new clause must be recognised as a wrecking attempt and nothing else. I invite right hon. and hon. Members to treat it accordingly, and to vote it down.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 76, Noes 175.

Division No. 111]
[18.28 pm


AYES


Allen, Graham
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Barnes, Harry
Keen, Alan


Barron, Kevin
Khabra, Piara S


Battle, John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Bayley, Hugh
Livingstone, Ken


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bermingham, Gerald
McCartney, Ian


Berry, Roger
McKelvey, William


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
McWilliam, John


Byers, Stephen
Martlew, Eric


Cann, Jamie
Michael, Alun


Clapham, Michael
Miller, Andrew


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Morgan, Rhodri


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Corbett, Robin
Mullin, Chris


Corston, Jean
Pike, Peter L


Dewar, Donald
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dowd, Jim
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Fatchett, Derek
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Flynn, Paul
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Galbraith, Sam
Ruddock, Joan


Galloway, George
Sedgemore, Brian


Gapes, Mike
Short, Clare


George, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman A
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Godsiff, Roger
Soley, Clive


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Spearing, Nigel


Hanson, David
Spellar, John


Heppell, John
Stevenson, George


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hodge, Margaret
Timms, Stephen


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Wicks, Malcolm


Hoyle, Doug
Wise, Audrey


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)



Ingram, Adam
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Mrs. Bridget Prentice and


Jenkins, Brian (S. E Staff)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Cash, William


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Amess, David
Churchill, Mr


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Clappison, James


Arbuthnot, James
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coe, Sebastian


Ashby, David
Colvin, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Congdon, David


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Conway, Derek


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bates, Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bellingham, Henry
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Beresford, Sir Paul
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Booth, Hartley
Dicks, Terry


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowis, John
Dover, Den


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Duncan, Alan


Brandreth, Gyles
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brazier, Julian
Dunn, Bob


Bright, Sir Graham
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Burt, Alistair
Evennett, David


Butterfill, John
Faber, David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fabricant, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Forman, Nigel


Carttiss, Michael
Forth, Eric






Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Moate, Sir Roger


French, Douglas
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Fry, Sir Peter
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Gale, Roger
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gardiner, Sir George
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Garnier, Edward
Nicholls, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gillan, Cheryl
Norris, Steve


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Oppenheim, Phillip


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Page, Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Paice, James


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Robathan, Andrew


Hannam, Sir John
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Sackville, Tom


Harris, David
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Hawkins, Nick
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Hawksley, Warren
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Heald, Oliver
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Hendry, Charles
Spink, Dr Robert


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Horam, John
Steen, Anthony


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Stem, Michael


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Streeter, Gary


Hunter, Andrew
Sumberg, David


Jenkin, Bernard
Sweeney, Walter


Jessel, Toby
Sykes, John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Temple-Morris, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Viggers, Peter


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Legg, Barry
Waller, Gary


Leigh, Edward
Ward, John


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Waterson, Nigel


Lidington, David
Watts, John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Whittingdale, John


Luff, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


MacKay, Andrew
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Madel, Sir David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Wood, Timothy


Malone, Gerald
Yeo, Tim


Mans, Keith
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Marshall, John (Hendon S)



Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Tellers for the Noes:


Mates, Michael
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
and


Merchant, Piers
Mr. Simon Burns.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 1

PURCHASE OF BLIGHTED PROPERTY

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, if so requested by an owner or occupier, either—

(a) acquire the interest of such owner or occupier in any property which as a consequence of the provisions of this Act cannot be sold except at a discount to unblighted market value, or

(b) pay to such owner or occupier the difference between the unblighted market value of such interest and the amount actually realised in the open market when it is sold.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order appoint one or more persons to perform on his behalf the duty imposed on him by subsection (1) above.

(3) Compensation shall be payable to an owner or occupier whose interest is acquired under this section on the same basis as compensation in respect of blighted property under Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

(4) The Secretary of State may—

(a) by regulations, amend or extend the provisions of Chapter II of Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to implement the provisions of this section, or
(b) by order, repeal this section.

(5) An order repealing this section shall not be made before the implementation of improvements to existing arrangements for property purchase and compensation resulting from recommendations by the Inter-Departmental Review established following the Special Report of the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.

(6) The power to make orders or regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be laid before Parliament in draft and shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Rowe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rowe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Compensation—
',—(1) On application being made to him the Secretary of State shall pay compensation to any residential occupier of property the value of whose interest in such property has been diminished by reason of the provisions of this Act.
(2) The amount of such compensation shall be the difference between the value that interest would have had if this Act had not been passed and the value it has following the passing of this Act; and both such values shall be calculated at the date of application to the Secretary of State.
(3) In default of any agreement between the Secretary of State and the applicant as to whether the provisions of this Act have caused such a diminution in value or as to the values referred to in subsection (2) above these matters shall be decided by a single arbitrator to be agreed between the parties or (in default of such agreement) to be appointed on the application of either party after notice in writing to the other by the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.'.
New clause 3—Hardship—
'Neither the Secretary of State in exercising any discretionary powers to purchase property affected by the provisions of this Act, nor the nominated undertaker in operating any similar or other discretionary or voluntary purchase scheme, shall require any applicant to show any degree of personal hardship in order to qualify for any purchase or other benefit.'.

Mr. Rowe: The debate so far has emphasised again that the line, when it is built, will belong to the whole nation and that the links that extend to the east and west coast main lines and other areas are indispensable to making the project a success. I agree, but it is worth recalling that the line will be built through Kent and south-east London. Whatever benefits the rest of the country will derive from its construction, the costs will fall most heavily on us.
The story has gone on for a very long time and part of the cost that has been carried by my constituents and many other people along the route has been the sheer anxiety and uncertainty that that long delay has occasioned. The purpose of new clause 1 is twofold. First, it would add to the Bill a recognition of the gain that we have made in the course of the long-drawn-out proceedings.
When the proceedings on the project began, the Department of Transport was adamant that there were only two forms of blight—statutory blight and discretionary blight. I am glad to say that after the long series of arduous debates, hearings, Select Committee meetings on the ombudsman's hearings, and the ombudsman's inquiry itself, we have now arrived at the recognition—I believe with the sympathy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport—that there is a third kind of blight which, in some ways, is the most damaging of all. That is the blight which destroys the price of somebody's home or business, not because it will be acquired compulsorily for the project and not because it is in the corridor sufficiently for the owner to claim compensation, but because nobody will buy or even come to look at the property if he realises that it is in a village in an area affected by the route.
6.45 pm
On this project, the matter has been made worse by the tergiversations about the actual route. For example, two of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Atkins, live in Harrietsham. They are 76 years old and have been trying to sell their house for a long time. Their family now live some distance away, and Mr. Atkins has had open-heart surgery. They live only 10 m outside the original rail corridor, and that totally destroyed any interest that any potential purchaser might have had in buying their property. After the route was changed, it is true that the line moved somewhat away from their property, but the effect on potential purchasers remained the same. That old couple have been effectively imprisoned in their home by that generalised blight.
Similarly, Mr. Gardiner, another of my constituents, had his family business plunged into bankruptcy when the bank revalued his property. The properties of both his immediate neighbours had been bought by British Rail, which was the lead promoter at the time, but his property was not bought. He had secured a loan for his business against the value of his property, and when the bank revalued his property, it valued it at nil. The result was that the security on his loan was withdrawn, and he had to take his family business, which had been going for 30 years, into bankruptcy.
Those are the costs that fall on citizens up and down the land when there are such massive projects, inspired by the Government and bringing ruin in their wake. The first purpose of new clause 1 is to add to the Bill, as I said, the recognition of that type of blight. Secondly, the new clause contains a feature to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is sympathetic. I know that, because we have talked about it informally on several occasions. Under the new clause, a property would be valued by an independent assessor, because sometimes there is a genuine doubt about the market value of a property. If the property were then sold on the open

market, the compensation paid would make up the difference. It would be based not on a notional price, but on the price fixed by the market.
Those two provisions are just and overdue. I hope that when the interdepartmental working party, which is one of the gains from the whole tortuous business of the link, publishes its results, it will accept the second provision.
The new clause would deal with a third problem. It would be monstrous if the householders and other owners, whose plight has caused the working party to be set up, were unable to benefit from any of its findings because those findings came too late or could not be implemented until after the project was under way. Therefore, the new clause contains the proposition that until an improvement in the compensation rules is achieved as a result of the interdepartmental working party, the purchasing of properties that can be shown to be blighted, in the way that I have described, should go ahead.
It is unacceptable for major Government schemes to stride through the country, wrecking people's lives in a wholly unpredictable way. In our case, four routes were put on the table at the beginning. Two of those routes were manifestly different and although they seem to have been a blind to conceal British Rail's original intentions, that does not alter the fact that the blight was spread over many families. I commend the new clause to the House.

Ms Margaret Hodge (Barking): I am delighted to be able to speak in support of new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), whom I am glad to see able to speak in defence of his constituents. He was not a member of the Committee and so at that stage had to depend on Opposition Members to defend his constituents' interests.

Mr. Rowe: The hon. Lady is being extremely kind, but I must be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), who also spoke with considerable eloquence on behalf of my constituents.

Ms Hodge: The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) did try his best, but his constituents are not as directly affected as are those of the hon. Gentleman. Our proceedings might have been enhanced by having his contributions and those of other Conservative Members with a specific constituency interest.
This is the final opportunity for those for whose constituents this is a major issue to argue the case across the political spectrum, for a fair and just system for responding to all residents who, through no fault of their own, have been affected by the route.
None of the new clauses that are concerned with compensation has been motivated by NIMBY—not in my backyard—interests. All who have a constituency interest have supported the building of the high-speed rail link. We have all argued that, in the interests of the British economy, it is imperative that it should be constructed. Only a week ago, I made my first trip on Eurostar from Paris to London. I was deeply impressed at the speed with which we travelled across France, but deeply depressed by the slowness with which we travelled through the English countryside. Of course, we want to promote the rail link in the national interest, but at whose expense? It is in answer to that question that we raise the issue of compensation.
I remain of the view that the route need never have gone through the centre of Barking, either above ground or through a tunnel. There was a perfectly sensible alternative solution, which would not have resulted in thousands of my constituents being unable to move or to sell their property. A disservice has been done to my constituents by all those involved before I became a Member of the House, in their determination to stick to that route and not to seek the sensible alternative of taking the route across a large tract of derelict land in Barking reach. People in the constituency, in the town hall and in Union Railways must share much of the blame for what has happened.
At the same time, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who was a member of the Select Committee, that I am grateful to the Committee for its work in ameliorating the absurd plans that were originally put forward by Union Railways. It is heartening that the concerns raised by individuals who attended on their own account to put their case before the Select Committee were listened to. The original proposals were led by engineers who had no regard to the impact that they would have on the lives of ordinary people all along the route but, in particular, in Barking.
The issue of compensation is important, not only because of the impact of the route on many people, but because of the time that it takes to build a railway. Ten years have elapsed between the original decision to build the tunnel and today, when the Bill will be sent to the other place. During that time, there have been rumours, counter-rumours, proposals, further proposals and changes of mind that have blighted the property of many householders along the route.
That is not the end of it. Under the current compensation scheme, were anybody to qualify for compensation and to get back some of the money that they have lost through no fault of their own, they would have to wait until well after the channel tunnel rail link was built, certainly in my constituency. I would love to think that we were talking about 2002, but in all probability we are talking about 2005 and perhaps even closer to 2010.
To qualify under the current discretionary purchase scheme, not only do people have to prove a diminution in value of their property, but they have to show that they are suffering from ill health or noise. My constituents, who are now to have a tunnel directly under their houses, will not know whether they will be eligible under the current scheme until after the tunnel has been built and tested—in 2007 or 2008. Since 1990, they have been unable to sell their properties. There is no market for any property, certainly in Barking, on the channel tunnel rail link route.
The residents believe that there will be a noise impact, although the promoter says that there will not. That dispute will not be resolved until 2005 or even 2009, whenever the route is completed. That is simply not good enough for ordinary people.
The other criterion of the current discretionary purchase scheme which has to be met is one of ill health. I have constituents who are suffering from real ill health brought about by the stress of not having the freedom to sell their property and move house. They are nervous wrecks,

taking endless drugs, and some have had to be hospitalised as a direct result of the nervous tension that they have suffered. But that is not sufficient for them to qualify under the current scheme. The current scheme is simply not good enough.
What does all that mean for people in Barking? More than 300 properties abut the railway. As I have said in the Chamber and in Committee, those are not properties with long gardens. The distance between the railway line and the kitchen window is the distance between the two Front Benches. Those properties were bought on the understanding that they were close to an existing line, the London-Tilbury-Southend line, on which traffic is limited.

Mr. Tony Banks: If one is lucky.

Ms Hodge: As my hon. Friend says, one is lucky to get anything. There is probably a train every 20 minutes in the rush hour. At the weekends, there is hardly any traffic, because it is primarily a commuter line and there is very little traffic after the rush hour in the evening and during the night.
That is what life was like. That is what those residents committed themselves to when they purchased those properties. As I have consistently said, they are ordinary people. They do not live in high-price, high-value properties. When the market was at its peak, the properties probably went for £75,000 or £80,000. Today, they are worthless, although the odd property has been sold for about £20,000.
A further 2,000 to 3,000 properties have been blighted by the proposals. We can look at maps and say that only properties on one side of a road should be blighted because only they abut the railway, but purchasers who understand what is about to happen, certainly now that a tunnel is to be constructed, will not touch properties that are a far greater distance from the railway line than those involved in the scheme would expect. Those properties simply cannot be sold.
Some people argue that the blight should have lifted, now that we have determined that a tunnel should go through Barking. In particular, Union Railways—or the new promoter—has told me on a number of occasions that there is blight because I and the residents have drawn attention to it. That is absolute nonsense. The blight has been created, first, by Union Railways' original, chaotic proposals—which were then amended by the Select Committee—and, secondly, by the Government's plans. The route for the tunnel was not planned by people in Barking; it was planned by the Government.
There is not one estate agent who will put on his list a property in Barking that is along the channel tunnel rail link. There is not a building society that will lend to a potential purchaser who wants to buy property in Barking. The council, working with a local housing association, has been unable to persuade the housing association to buy properties along the route so that they can at least be used for social housing. No one seems to care.
7 pm
At every surgery that I hold in my constituency, at least one family come to see me with yet another heart-rending story about how their inability to move is impacting on their lives. I realise that hon. Members would like to finish this debate, but this is our final opportunity to go through some of the cases.
There is one family with a young son who has bacterial meningitis, which was contracted when he was eight months old. Because of his condition, he suffers from respiratory and hearing problems. Two summers ago, he had an operation to remove tonsils and adenoids and to put grommets in his ear. The family doctor has recommended that the family move to a rural area, and they want to move as soon as possible for the sake of their child's health. The channel tunnel rail link proposals have made it impossible for them to sell their house, so they cannot move.
Down the road lives an elderly lady with angina. She can no longer climb the stairs in her little home. She is desperate to sell her house so that she can buy a bungalow in Norfolk and retire there to be nearer her daughter, but she cannot move.
There is a gentleman who was on the verge of selling his house in 1992, until prospective purchasers became aware of the rail link. His son has chronic asthma. His family's GP has recommended that the family move to a coastal area. He works for the Post Office and was recently offered a transfer to Colchester, but he had to turn it down because he cannot sell his house. He is now redundant. His wife is unable to work because she suffers from a chronic breast disease and has arthritis of the spine. They are stuck there.
There is a family who have lived at an address for, probably, 17 years. Mrs. Downs is confined to a wheelchair and requires periods of quiet during the day in a stress-free environment. The family already suffer some noise nuisance from passing trains. Their lives would be made intolerable by the construction and operation of the channel tunnel rail link, which would go through their back garden. They have made no progress in selling their house.
There is a family who inherited a house when their mother died. They live in another house down the road, because it is a very close community. They want to sell both homes so that they can move, and to use some of the resources that they would realise to put their children through higher education. They have tried to sell the houses by significantly reducing the asking price, but both properties are still unsaleable. They sought to rent out one of the properties, but a local accommodation agency advised them that a property that would normally rent at £120 a week cannot be rented out even at £90.
One couple bought a house in 1983. They have had a family since then. The house has two bedrooms, but they have three children. They want to move to a larger property as the children are of different sexes and have grown older. They cannot sell their property. The list goes on and on.
There is a family in which the father has an arthritic spine. He has had an operation, but it was unsuccessful. He has now had a second operation. Doctors and consultants have sent letters to, at that time, Union Railways, but the family have had no luck under the discretionary purchase scheme. They are stuck there.
There is a family who want to buy a business in Devon. They cannot buy it because they cannot sell their house.
In another family, the husband died. The wife is an epileptic and has been advised by doctors not to live alone. She wants to sell the house and go to live with her son.
The parents died in one family and left the house to their three daughters. They cannot sell the house. The list goes on and on.
In one family, the woman is on a breathing apparatus and really needs to move out of the area into a different environment. They cannot sell their house.
There is a family in which an elderly widow suffers from angina. She wanted to buy a bungalow when she retired. She cannot sell her house. It goes on and on.
I think that probably the worst case—it made me very cross—was one in which I was finally able to get Union Railways to agree to purchase the property. The couple in that house were desperate to move. Before the purchase went through, however, the husband died.
Those examples show the proposals' impact on ordinary people in a very ordinary part of London.
The Select Committee's and the ombudsman's reports recognised the importance of blight. On page xxix, referring to environmental improvements, the Select Committee stated:
Blight cannot be dealt with in this way, and can only be responded to by compensation.
Later, it added:
Furthermore, we require that the promoter improves the operation of the discretionary purchase scheme to reduce the apparent delays in making payments under the scheme.
The Select Committee stated on page xxxi:
We have observed that the present law appears totally inadequate in situations in which a reduction in the price of a property is attributable to a project such as the rail link even though the property will not actually be physically affected.
The ombudsman's report stated:
In my view, it is unquestionable maladministration not to have considered the effects of the policy upon those to be affected by it.
Such maladministration is more evident when the problems caused to individuals by the implementation of a policy become apparent, but still no action is taken to consider a remedy. I have found that that is what happened in respect of the CTRL.
I welcome the Government's response in setting up the interdepartmental working party, although, as I said in Committee, we need a time frame for it. I suspect that the Government will not bring the results of the working party's efforts to the House—I would welcome an assurance to the contrary—before the end of this Parliament.
The French can build railway lines properly—why on earth cannot we do the same? When the French want to construct a railway line, they provide generous compensation to people who, through no fault of their own, experience a diminution in the value of their property and who lose the freedom to move—that primary control over their lives.

Mr. Tony Banks: I endorse what my hon. Friend said, and merely underline her point that the French can construct lines so swiftly because people genuinely welcome them and there is not a long-drawn-out battle, as there is when people realise that they are going to suffer physical and economic hazards. Perhaps that is why the French are able to build lines so much more quickly than we can.

Ms Hodge: I concur with my hon. Friend entirely.
Additional costs would be involved in a more generous compensation scheme, but in relation to the project as a whole, they would be marginal. Compared with the additional costs that have already been incurred by the delay in this case, the costs of additional compensation would be peanuts. The Government appear to have accepted the additional costs arising from the changes in the scheme, so why cannot they accept the additional costs arising out of an appropriate compensation scheme?
I hope that hon. Members will today take this issue seriously. The question is who pays. In this context, is it fair that ordinary residents—householders who have found that, through no fault of their own, the value of their property has been massively diminished and that their ability to sell it has been annihilated—should pay? In other matters, the Government say that the polluter pays. In this instance, the Government are the polluter and they should pick up the bill and support the three new clauses.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I have considerable sympathy with the new clauses. The key point is the one that has been made on several occasions—that the House and the country want the rail link, in which case the developer and/or the Government should pay for it. The people who should not pay for it are those whose properties are in the line of the rail link and who face the diminution of the value of their homes and businesses.
Like the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), I have had dozens of people come to my surgery over the years, some with cases just as heart-rending as those that she mentioned. I should point out that this blight hit my constituency all the way back in 1988 when the original route was proposed. So we are no novices in this dreadful business of blight and the compensation that is required.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) referred to three forms of blight. I strongly support his comments about peripheral blight. Where the rail link goes through the urban area of my constituency, it passes literally thousands of homes. In that broad swathe, those residents have found that they cannot sell their houses or achieve properly secured mortgages. They are well and truly stuck, whether or not the circumstances of their family or employment require them to move. We must examine the matter of peripheral blight.
Another form of blight was brought before the Select Committee, although it did not grapple with it—the blight that brings about bankruptcy. I brought two cases before the House in an Adjournment debate, which were also heard in the Select Committee, of residents in the direct line of the high-speed rail link. They were small business men who used their properties to secure loans for their businesses. In both cases, the security of their loans proved inadequate, the finance ceased to become available and their private companies withered and died. The blight compensation provisions include no provision to compensate people in such dreadful cases.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's announcement that he will appoint a working party to consider matters of blight. I hope that the working party and the Minister will give careful and rapid consideration

to peripheral blight and the extraordinary cases of failure of family businesses resulting from the impact of the rail link.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I add to the litany of overwhelmingly strong cases? I notice that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) also wishes to catch your eye in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He has been an assiduous chaser after the same solutions. I have no direct vested interest on behalf of my constituency in this particular Bill, although the borough of Southwark was directly affected by the previous proposals and route and the issue of blight was very pertinent. When my constituents and those of two other constituencies in my borough were spared, it would not have been fair if we walked away and left the case to be fought by those who are in the same position. People in the boroughs of Barking and Dagenham and of Newham and in Kent and Essex—

Mr. Chris Smith: And Islington.

Mr. Hughes: —and in Islington, are still directly affected. It is a very important issue.
I wish to rehearse again the fact that we have had an unsatisfactory law on compensation for a ridiculously long period. Of course the interdepartmental working party is a good idea, but unless they result in proposals, good ideas are not much use. The Minister will be aware that, on a regular basis, I persist in arguing the same case in relation to those who suffer blight from works connected with the underground. My constituents have an interest in that.
Some businesses in my constituency have gone under—not physically, but commercially—as a result of the Jubilee line extension. Some of them fall within the rules. If a building is physically taken out of the local geography because the line or the works go through it, people are compensated. If it happens to be two yards away—as a building is in Borough high street by London Bridge station—such that all a person's business is taken away, they are not. If a great hole is dug before the front door, if people can hardly see that the business is still there and if to get to it they have to be athletes or trapeze artists—in short if the business is clearly no longer viable, people do not qualify for compensation. If the traffic is redirected because the works are outside the door of a business and passing trade disappears, no help is available.
It could be said that people just have to take the commercial risk. That is true as long as it is not a matter of public provision for public benefit made through an Act of Parliament. However, when we are talking about a rail link between the channel tunnel and the capital city, about public railways—even under a privatised Railtrack—or about public tube services—even under a privatised tube network, although I hope that that never happens—it is not good enough to say that people must take the commercial risk and accept that they may be sitting pretty one day and the next be blighted by a proposal that affects their business or home life.
People can suffer blight even with the benefit of the advice of the most vigilant lawyers in the world. One of my constituents inquired whether his business would be


affected by the route. He was expressly told that it would not. On the day on which he bought the business, there was no blight. Literally a month later, the proposals changed. It was too late. He had made the commercial transaction, acquired the business, laid out the investment and borrowed the money. He got into difficulties, but when the plans changed, it was too late. That was a risk that he was meant to take.
I should be grateful to hear in the Minister's response how soon we shall hear the results of the review and how soon legislation will be introduced. I join my colleagues in requesting that any response does not benefit generations to come, to the exclusion of those who have precipitated this call for a fairer compensation system. Other countries have such a system. Compensation can be provided through insurance. It need not cost the nation a fortune. We really must stop blighting the lives of hundreds and thousands of families and business people without compensating them, when simple legislation such as has been introduced by many colleagues over many years could reasonably do so. It is not beyond the wit of men and women to devise a system. We ought to get on with it.
I hope that this is the last time that we have to put in a plea in the Report stage of a Bill. I am sure that if the Government wanted to introduce a compensation Bill in the one remaining Session of this Parliament, all of us would be willing to postpone the general election by a few months to put it on the statute book.

Sir John Stanley: I, too, support new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), and the comments made by those who have spoken in the debate so far. I also support the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will note that hon. Members from the three major parties are all saying the same thing on the issue of blight and compensation. The position is profoundly unsatisfactory.
The issue of blight was raised at the very outset of proceedings on the Bill in the Second Reading debate on 16 January 1995. Fifteen months later, we still have had no practical response other than the formation of an interdepartmental working party. Those of us who have been privileged to serve in government know well the immense length of time that it takes for any legislation to emerge from interdepartmental working parties, if it ever does.
Also, as far as I am aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not responded to the specific recommendations of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Perhaps he has now proposed a scheme to the Committee, but, if so, it has not been reported to the House. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us whether a scheme has now been devised in accordance with the undertaking to produce one in response to the Committee's recommendation, whether it has been submitted to the Committee and when we shall know the details.
The Select Committee examined the Bill over a long period, and did heroic and sterling work. The issue of blight and compensation was raised continually. Now the Bill is on Report, but as far as I know—unless my hon. Friend the Minister can tell us something positive—we have been given neither a Government amendment nor a Government policy to deal with the problem.
As the hon. Member for Barking pointed out, this is not really a public expenditure issue but an equity issue affecting individuals. It cannot ever be right for a responsible public body to look to individuals, through the value—or devaluation—of their assets, to subsidise the public sector infrastructure work that is required in the public interest. It is fundamental that people must be treated fairly, and not be faced with a massive, long-term and perhaps permanent reduction in the value of their main asset so that a public sector project can proceed. The burden should be spread across all taxpayers.
I consider it morally incumbent on the House, on Union Railways and on the Government to provide an equitable answer to a problem that has been described eloquently by members of all the major parties in the House. If that cannot be done here, perhaps it can be done in the other place. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will respond positively.

Mr. Chris Smith: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief constituency contribution from the Back Benches, and to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). As I always do on these occasions, I declare an interest, not only on behalf of the hundreds of constituents who are affected by the rail link but on my own behalf: my home abuts directly on to the line.
I want to make two specific constituency points about blight. First, however, let me pay a warm tribute to the Select Committee's work. It deliberated carefully for many hours, and listened attentively to the numerous representations of my constituents.
Last July, when the Committee made its initial findings public, my constituents were overjoyed by its recommendation that the line running under the borough of Islington should be in tunnel all the way into the railway land behind St. Pancras. For a few weeks, it appeared that the blight that had threatened many of the streets immediately surrounding the western end of the line through Islington would be lifted. Then rumours began in the press that the Government were reconsidering the Committee's recommendation, and Union Railways subsequently submitted a revised version of the scheme. That revised version is now included in the Bill.
It must be said that the revised scheme is still massively better than the original reference case first advanced by Union Railways, but it gives the petitioners less than the arrangement that everyone thought had been decided last July, and a number of concerns remain—two in particular. The first relates to the timing of any decisions arising from the deliberations of the interdepartmental working party. The timing of any compensation scheme is vital to the affected areas.
I am particularly concerned about the impact on homes in Bunning way—flats and houses in my constituency that were sold a few years ago, specifically as starter homes. Many were sold to young couples who were buying their first home, intending to move in due course. A number of those couples now want to start families, but their homes are not large enough for them to bring up children there, and they wish to move. At present, however, their homes are severely blighted, and they could sell only at sharply reduced prices.
Under the present scheme, even if those people qualify for compensation, they will not receive it until the railway has been running for a year—and it may not start running until seven to 10 years from now. By then, they will have had to give up the idea of having children at all, or they will have had to subsidise a railway by selling their homes at a loss. I do not consider that a just way of dealing with the impact that the line will have.
My other concern relates to the Gifford street embankment. It is currently proposed that the line should be tunnelled through the embankment until it reaches a point just before the east coast main line, when it will emerge into the open to cross that line. It is extremely important to those living in Gifford street—one of those homes happens to be mine—that the tunnel be bored through the bank rather than dug in a "cut and cover" operation. A ministerial assurance has been given, in a letter to the local representative group that raised the issue with the Minister, that the tunnel will indeed be bored, but I fear that that assurance will mean little if a problem suddenly arises on the site. When the time comes for the work to be carried out, we may be told that it is far too difficult to bore the tunnel, and that half the embankment will have to be removed instead.
We asked for the requirement for the tunnel to be bored to be inserted in the Bill, but, sadly, the Select Committee did not agree to that. I hope that the Government will none the less give enforceable undertakings to the Committee in the other place, because that particular question will substantially affect the issue of blight in Gifford street.
Those are two specific issues, but they reflect the general concern that I know is shared by all of us with constituents who are directly affected by the proposed line. We all want to see the channel tunnel rail link in place and we want trains travelling fast from St. Pancras through the tunnel to the continent. However, we must make sure that that is done in the right way and with due consideration for the lives and livelihoods of the people who live immediately beside the line and who will be directly affected by the work when it starts and when the trains are running.

Mr. Brooke: I follow my parliamentary neighbour, the hon Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). If, in speaking to the new clauses, I referred to a railway line or route other than the one that eponymously gives its name to the Bill, I would almost certainly be ruled out of order. Therefore, I say elliptically that if my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) had tabled his new clause mutatis mutandis in relation to another Bill that related to another railway line, I would have supported it in the same way as I support this new clause.
I cannot claim a constituency interest, for the reasons set out by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), because the original line changed for both of us. There is also the historic fact that the profession of British consulting engineers grew up along Victoria street in the last century so that its members could be within walking distance of the House to advise Committees on railway legislation during that era.
I support the principle of the new clause and I should like to make a supportive reference to what I would call the long-standing anticipatory blight about which other hon. Members have spoken—caused because no compensation is affordable until the relevant works are triggered. I shall also refer to those unfortunate people who, when the works are going on, will have to sustain the aggravation, potentially without receiving in benefit from the completed works even a tithe of the disruption that they have suffered. In that respect, I found a sympathetic resonance in the speech by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), whose new clause we are also discussing.
I have been delighted to hear about the interdepartmental working party. In view of all the rail workings that stretch in front of us, I hope that its terms of reference are wide and that they relate to the widest possible range of contingencies so that we may make the maximum use of fallow time as this line and others unroll. The hon. Member for Barking spoke about the French arrangements and in that context I have taken the liberty of suggesting to London First, which rightly presses London Members on a series of issues on London's behalf, that it might sensibly mount an examination of those arrangements to see whether their application would economically accelerate the building of railways that they otherwise support.
As I have not so far been ruled out of order, I shall conclude by reminding the House of Miss Katherine Whitehorn's account of the effect of the London motorway box in the street in which she once lived. She recounted that the only house adversely affected by the plans had been bought three months earlier by a professional clairvoyant.

Mr. Watts: I can tell my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) that the terms of reference of the interdepartmental working party are broad.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Do they include clairvoyants?

Mr. Watts: I do not think so.
The working party will look at changes in the compensation codes that could be applied not just to this project but more broadly and, undoubtedly, to another project that my right hon. Friend might have had in mind.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) asked about the working party devising a scheme to meet the requirements of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. That work is still in progress but, as we said when the setting up of the working party was announced in November, it will be brought to a conclusion as soon as possible. I am afraid that I cannot be more precise on that.

Mr. Hughes: When is "as soon as possible"?

Mr. Watts: Perhaps I should consult a clairvoyant on that.
I sympathise with the view of many hon. Members that property owners or occupiers should not suffer loss on the sale of property as a result of perceived blight. However, I do not think that the new clause is the right way to


address the problem. It goes much further than the concerns that were expressed by the Select Committee and that led to the setting up of the working party. It is premature, as it is in advance of the outcome of that review, which we announced on 18 March.
We should briefly consider the principles that underlie all existing compensation provisions. They include that the basis for any claim should be assessable against objective criteria; that the cause and effect must be demonstrable; and that the claimant should not finish up in a better position than would otherwise have been the case. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment explained in Standing Committee the three main circumstances under which owners may be compensated under current law. They are, first, where property is acquired compulsorily for the purposes of a public project; secondly, where property is subject to statutory blight, that is, blighted because of a future intention to acquire it; and, thirdly, where property is subject to injurious affection. It may not need to be acquired, but the conditions apply if there is a clearly demonstrable adverse affect on its value as a result of, for example, noise or vibration.

Mr. Rowe: I hoped that I had made it clear that, by putting properties on the market and seeing just how much less they fetched than would have been their valuation otherwise, we had met the standard of objectivity that the Minister has just stated.

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend's suggestion and those made in the debate by other hon. Members will be looked at by the working party. I have said that the terms of reference are wide, and we shall wish to consider all relevant experience and suggestions, including, of course, overseas experience.
The new clause ignores the principles under which existing arrangements have operated. Some hon. Members may say, "That is well and good, but we think that the existing arrangements are inadequate." However, such fundamental changes should not be made just in respect of a specific project, but made only after careful review and as the basis for making changes that would apply to all similar projects.
We recognise the legitimate concern about the wider effects of blight—so-called perceived or generalised blight—which may affect property values even where there is no direct effect on the property, so existing compensation provisions may therefore not apply. That concern was raised by the Select Committee, which heard a great deal of evidence on a wide variety of concerns related to the Bill. Many of the matters that were raised essentially had to do with the provisions in general law rather than those in the Bill. The Committee concluded that in all such cases the existing national rules should apply. Even in the case of property compensation, the Committee concluded that existing arrangements were inadequate and called for a national review rather than special treatment for the project. In response, we set up the interdepartmental review of blight which the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment announced in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on 18 March, Official Report, column 9.
New clause 1 recognises that any scheme now instigated may be premature, in that subsection (5) provides for the arrangements to be repealed in the light of the recommendations following the review.
The new clause raises practical issues and difficulties. If we were to agree to such a radical extension of the statutory blight concept, it would raise difficult issues about the definition of "unblighted value" and on the means of disaggregating the various factors that may have reduced the property's value, given that "perceived blight" can be widespread and is a thoroughly subjective, although pernicious, concept. By definition, there would be no identifiable or measurable physical effects.
Furthermore, the scheme that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) proposes might increase blight if it encouraged people to sell at a loss because they knew that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be obliged to pay the difference between unblighted market value and any amount realised.
I am not rejecting out of hand the notion of a compensation rather than a purchase basis. As my hon. Friend alluded, in my discussions with him, I have acknowledged that that might be a sensible approach, but, today, I am not prepared to say that I have reached that conclusion. These important matters must be considered carefully in the review.

Mr. Allen: Will the Minister consider asking the interdepartmental working group to consider also non-monetary compensation so that, for example, the homes for the frail elderly on the Euston side of St. Pancras might have to be rebuilt rather than an exchange of money taking place?

Mr. Watts: The working party can consider all suggestions made during this important debate.
There is a danger that the effects of a scheme such as the one that my hon. Friend suggests could lead to snowballing blight. There could be a perverse effect. If the new clause were added to the Bill, his scheme would be part of the Act and if the new clause caused a blighting effect on other property, the operation of the scheme under the Act would be compensatable under the new clause's powers.
I understand that my hon. Friend is concerned about blight caused by earlier routes and proposals. I understand that his new clause would not cover that and that it cannot be made to do so within the scope of the Bill, so I am not sure that the new clause would achieve all that I know that he wants it to achieve on behalf of his constituents.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will accept what I have said about the inadvisability of making piecemeal changes to the compensation code on blight before the outcome of the review, specifically set up, at the Select Committee's request, to consider that subject, but the important issue that remains is how any changes that are made as a result of the review would be applied to people affected by the project.
The House will know that, for obvious reasons, it is not the usual practice of Governments to give any prior commitment in respect of policy reviews that have yet to be completed and in, Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said that he would consider sympathetically how the review's outcome could be applied.
I have given further thought to that. I take the point made in the debate that it would be perverse if a review that led to changes in the compensation code—a review prompted by the blight problems caused by the project—and the outcome of its recommendations were such that people affected by the project could not benefit from the review. Therefore, I am prepared to go further and to give a clear undertaking that any changes introduced to the compensation code as a result of the review will be given effect in respect of blight arising from the channel tunnel rail link. I hope that, with that assurance, my hon. Friend will not feel it necessary to press the new clause.

Mr. Rowe: Is it in order for hon. Members and members of public to submit evidence to the working group and, if so, how do we do it?

Mr. Watts: Certainly. A total of 130 organisations, professional and otherwise, have been invited specifically to submit their views, but the views of hon. Members and of members of the public, submitted in writing to the Department of the Environment, would be most welcome.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sure that the House will be encouraged to hear what the Minister said to the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). We are grateful for that and for the additional information. This may not have been put to the Minister in these terms and therefore I will not expect an immediate reply. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) raised a similar matter. Will the Minister consider whether people affected simultaneously, not by channel tunnel works, but by the same issue and who have raised those effects in parallel—although they do not come under this specific legislation primarily—could also be considered? We are looking at a date start for a new scheme. I hope that the Minister will consider whether, equitably, all people affected in similar ways by similar legislated-for proposals might be considered and reply in due course, as soon as he has had a chance to examine the matter.

Mr. Watts: I shall reflect on what the hon. Gentleman says and reply to him in due course. That is one of the factors that can be taken into account in the review.
I hope that, with the clear assurance that I have given hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent and the House, he will not feel it necessary to press his new clause to a vote.

Mr. Rowe: I have been in this place long enough to know that it is frequently wise to accept half a loaf rather than no bread at all and, given that we are shortly to send the Bill to another bakery, I am inclined to accept my hon. Friend the Minister's concession with considerable gratitude and pleasure. I wish that he had been able to go much further, but I understand the constraints under which he is operating and, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15

LICENSING

Amendments made: No. 1, in page 8, line 8, leave out 'and'.
No. 2, in page 8, line 10, at end insert
', and
(c) any station constructed for the purposes of the rail link at Stratford, in the London borough of Newham.'.—[Mr. Watts.]

Clause 30

CONSTRUCTION OF AUTHORISED WORKS: FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 16, leave out lines 29 to 33.—[Mr. Watts.]

Clause 31

RESERVED CAPACITY ON THE RAIL LINK: EXPENDITURE

Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 16, line 34, leave out
'enter into an agreement with'
and insert 'make payments to'.—[Mr. Watts.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 4 to 7.

Mr. Timms: May I briefly ask the Minister a question that arises from the amendment and that has been raised with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), dealing with the terms on which payments will be made to London and Continental Railways?
Suggestions have been made in the press—I have with me a copy of the New Civil Engineer from 28 March—that London and Continental Railways will not have to start work on building the channel tunnel rail link until European Passenger Services is profitable, which will clearly give London and Continental Railways, as the owner of EPS, the ability to borrow against the Eurostar revenue stream. Is that part of the agreement between the Government and London and Continental Railways?
Profitability for Eurostar will entail about 6 million or 7 million passenger journeys per year, compared with about 3 million journeys at present. It is projected that that will take 18 months or so. If it does take that period, that may just about be consistent with the current timetable of construction commencing in autumn 1997, but it is tight.
Is there uncertainty about the timetable for the scheme related to the speed of achieving profitability at Eurostar? Will that be a factor in whether the 2002 target date for the first trains from Stratford to Paris is achieved? As far as I know, the Government have said nothing on the point, but there has been speculation about it and I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the position.

Mr. Watts: In the development agreement, there is no relationship between the start of construction and the profitability of European Passenger Services, although it will be desirable for EPS to be transferred to London and


Continental Railways as soon as possible so that it can start to improve the service's profitability. There is nothing in the agreement that ties the profitability of the Eurostar services to the start of construction.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 4, in page 16, line 35, after 'undertaker' insert
', or its nominee, in pursuance of an agreement'.

No. 5, in page 16, line 35, leave out 'to it'.—[Mr. Watts.]

Clause 32

HOLDERS OF FUNCTIONS OF NOMINATED UNDERTAKER

Amendments made: No. 6, in page 17, line 11, leave out from beginning to second 'the' and insert—
'(3) An agreement by the Secretary of State with respect to'.

No. 7, in page 17, line 12, at end insert
'shall be effective notwithstanding that it fetters his discretion.'.—[Mr. Watts.]

Schedule 13

PROTECTIVE PROVISIONS

Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 216, line 15, at end add—

'PART V

PROTECTION OF OWNERS OF LAND OR BUILDINGS AT RISK OF SETTLEMENT

1. The following provisions of this Part of this Schedule shall, unless otherwise agreed in writing between the nominated undertaker and the owner, have effect.
2. In this Part of this Schedule "the zone of influence" means the area within which land is liable to subside as a result of the construction of an authorised work.
3. The nominated undertaker shall in the construction, maintenance, use and operation of the scheduled works employ best practice to prevent or minimise settlement or damage to buildings.
4. The nominated undertaker shall notify in writing the owners of any land within the zone of influence at least 28 days in advance of the commencement of tunnelling and on completion of tunnelling in such zone.
5. If a building within the zone of influence of an underground authorised work is suffering or has suffered serious structural damage during the construction of the authorised work, an engineer or surveyor appointed by the owner shall, on giving reasonable notice, be entitled to inspect the authorised work in the vicinity of such building accompanied by a representative of the nominated undertaker.
6. The nominated undertaker shall ensure that any tunnel forming part of the authorised works has sufficient strength on completion of the construction of the tunnel safely to withstand a uniform or partial load of 50 kilonewtons per square metre.'.

I must begin by declaring an interest because my house in Forest Gate in the east end of London lies directly over the proposed channel tunnel link; not just to the left or just to the right, but immediately over it. Obviously, my property is very much affected. On the other side of Sprowston road is the site of the vent shaft. No one can say that I will not be materially affected by what is going on. I hasten to add that I am more than happy to undergo all the privations that will no doubt accompany the construction of the tunnel in order to achieve what we have all been trying to achieve—the international station

at Stratford. I make no complaint about that. Of course, I raise this matter on behalf of many others as well as myself. A large number of people in the London boroughs of Newham, Hackney and Islington will be affected.
There are many Victorian properties in the area. There was a great deal of war damage and many of those buildings suffered badly. Movement of the ground underneath them potentially puts them at risk. I do not want to be sitting in my front room on a quiet day with my good lady wife, Sally, listening to our favourite Status Quo records, as we often do, only to find that with a horrible crash my entire house has fallen in on to the 4.15 pm out of Stratford and we find ourselves being conveyed at 186 miles per hour towards the Gare du Nord in France. If we were going to do that, perhaps I could have my own small station called Sprowston halt, or something like that. In that way I could descend into the tunnel in a more dignified fashion.
There is a problem and there will be subsidence. Although we are given all these assurances, the point of my amendment is to try to obtain certain assurances that, if the older properties are affected, compensation can be paid.

Mr. Allen: Is this one of those occasions when, unusually, my hon. Friend is seeking to defend the status quo?

Mr. Banks: I would always defend the group Status Quo, but it extends only as far as that. I certainly would not defend a joke like that.
I should give the reason behind the amendment. In the same way as statutory undertakers are offered protection in the Bill for their services and equipment, home owners and other owners of land and buildings should be offered protection. The promoters informed the Select Committee in June 1995 that a deed concerning settlement would be offered to owners within 30 m of a tunnel and the proposed deed was put before the Committee. However, it was on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and the promoters were not willing to enter into negotiations on its terms as they require it to be in standard form.
After considerable pressure, the promoters have responded to amendments suggested by the London borough of Hackney, in concert with Islington and Newham. A meeting to discuss points arising but not to negotiate took place at the beginning of March.
For the sake of amity, co-operation and some of the other things that we have seen associated with the Bill, I have given the Minister a copy of my briefing note so that he is in a better position to answer. The points included in the amendment are matters of general principle upon which it has not been possible to date to reach agreement with the promoters. I specifically draw attention to paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6.
I will not bother to go through all the points since I have already conveyed them to the Minister. If the Minister can give me some assurance that he is looking at those points sympathetically, I will be overjoyed.

Mr. Watts: As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has acknowledged, most of these matters in our view are already covered by the code of construction practice, which is a legally enforceable agreement.
With regard to the inspection of the works, paragraph 5 of the proposed amendment would give an engineer or surveyor appointed by the owner of the building which was suffering or had suffered "serious structural damage" the ability to inspect the CTRL works in the vicinity of the building. That is an issue that the local authorities have raised in terms of an addition to the deed and we have considered it carefully.
In view of the fact that the main issue of relevance in the unlikely event of such damage is the determination of remedial works to the building, we have concluded that the advantage to building owners of such a right, when measured against the difficulties of providing for building owners' engineers to have access to, for example, major underground tunnelling operations, would not be warranted.
With regard to the load-bearing standards of tunnels, paragraph 6 of the proposed amendment would place a requirement on London and Continental to construct tunnels so that they could withstand a load of 50 kilonewtons per square metre. I am not an engineer, but I am told by those who are that, while we would not expect there to be a problem in meeting and indeed, in some cases, exceeding that sort of load strength where the existing ground conditions provided that level of load-bearing capacity, there are concerns about the burden that such an absolute general requirement would place on those building the CTRL, in cases, for example, of made ground where that load bearing might not exist and also in terms of the monitoring requirements and the need to demonstrate that we had met the requirement in each and every case.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if individual owners have residual concerns about protection for existing buildings, we would be willing to consider including this sort of provision in additional individual settlement deeds.
The code of construction practice is contractually binding on London and Continental through the development agreement. In addition, the settlement deed which is available to householders provides a direct and legally enforceable remedy for individuals. So there is double protection.
We believe that the deed, coupled with the provisions in the code of construction practice, deal with the subject of settlement in a much more detailed and comprehensive way than the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be adequately reassured. If he requires further reassurance, perhaps we could correspond on the matter.

Mr. Tony Banks: All I can say is that I would not like to be around and facing my wife if our house did fall into the tunnel, but, of course, I probably would not be. With the assurances that the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Title

Amendment made: No. 10, in title, line 5, after 'therewith;' insert
'to make provision about related works;'—[Mr. Watts.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Mr. Watts: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This debate completes 16 months of scrutiny of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill by the House. Between February last year and February this year the Bill was considered by the Select Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant). More than 1,000 petitions were received and the Committee's task was on a scale without precedent. It was carried out with great patience, care and balance, and tributes have been paid from both sides of the House to the work of the members of the Select Committee. The Committee has sought some substantial changes to the route and has rejected others. The Government accepted in full all the recommendations of the Select Committee.
We have given the Bill further careful scrutiny in Standing Committee and in the House today. Everyone is united in the desire to see the project proceed with the greatest speed and I can assist that process by drawing my remarks to a close and wishing the Bill a successful and speedy passage through another place.

Mr. Jamie Cann: As a member of the Select Committee, I should like to say an odd word or two about the way in which the Bill's proceedings were conducted. I know that I speak for everybody who served on that Committee when I say that we are very grateful to the Government—I say this because I can see that there are no press around—for the way in which they listened to the Committee after its year and one month's worth of deliberations, took on board the proposals and suggestions made, and in a bipartisan manner produced plans which I think are a very good result. Let us hope that works on the ground come off just as well and that they are completed as quickly as possible.
I should also like to say how much I as an Opposition Member valued, as we all did, the way in which the hon. Member for Reading, West handled matters in the Select Committee. He dealt with every one of the more than 900 petitioners with patience, care and attention, even though many were apprehensive. What is more, one or two barristers the Committee left feeling more apprehensive than they had been when they arrived, which was also a good thing. The hon. Gentleman was ably assisted by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick).
By and large, it was a delightful Committee on which to serve. It did practical, good work, producing a rail link that, at the end of the day, was accepted by the Government. I think that the link is accepted by the people of the counties and boroughs through which it passes as well as it could possibly have been. Serving on the Select Committee was one of the better parts of my time so far in the House.

8 pm

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The House has been working on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill since Second Reading on 16 January last year. My constituents and I have been


working on what was originally a threat and is now an opportunity since the autumn of 1988. Between those dates, a difference has been made by the appearance on the scene of London and Continental Railways. Since the announcement in late February, hon. Members who represent Kent and other Members who are affected have yet to meet the leaders of London and Continental Railways. I should not like to miss this opportunity to draw very much to their attention the fact that Members of Parliament who represent constituencies along the route are not to be ridden over roughshod; our concerns and those of our constituents should be listened to very carefully. I hope that meetings will shortly be held so that we may highlight matters.
Although I appreciate very much the attention that the Select Committee paid to the concerns of my constituents, I should like to highlight to the promoters and to the House a number of issues affecting Gravesham that have not been addressed. Perhaps the greatest environmental threat along the channel tunnel rail link remains that to Ashenbank wood and Cobham park in my constituency—issues that I raised on Second Reading which have not been addressed.
I remind the House that Ashenbank is ancient woodland, of significance for its wildlife habitat, and a site of special scientific interest. Cobham park and its ponds along the route are a fine example of a Repton landscape, which would be damaged by the link. Proposals provide for a wedge to be driven through the woodlands and a railway to be driven along the edge of Cobham park. The devastation would be considerable. Scientific analysis conducted subsequent to the proposal showed that the subsoil at Ashenbank wood is such that the cutting would need an even wider land take, which would be devastating to that ancient woodland. Scientists and engineers have developed proposals for tunnelling under the site and they should be addressed.
I should also like to draw to the attention of the promoters the proposal for crossing the A227 Wrotham road in my constituency on an elevated viaduct. It is highly inappropriate to the environment and we have not yet seen a design that gives us any confidence that blight from noise will not affect the considerable number of houses nearby.
It is proposed that the channel tunnel rail link will also pass underneath the A2 motor road in Northfleet in my constituency. That road carries extremely heavy traffic from north Kent to London, and very careful attention must be paid to mitigation work so as not to disrupt the traffic passing through during construction.
My constituents are delighted by the Ebbsfleet station proposal, which brings regeneration benefits to our area and the prospect of commuting to London in 19 minutes instead of the current 40 minutes. The Blue Circle properties company owns a large amount of land in that immediate area and has come up with magnificent development proposals. I hope that London and Continental Railways will negotiate effectively and constructively with Blue Circle so that the development of the station and the Blue Circle property areas are co-ordinated to the benefit of my constituents.
I should like also to refer to the Northfleet bypass. That town has on one side the Thames tunnel of the channel tunnel rail link, which is a major construction project in itself, and on the other the Ebbsfleet international station.

The only connection between the two is the road that trundles right through the middle of that old town. We need a bypass, and the Select Committee said that the matter should be addressed. It is known as the south Thameside development route phase 4. Kent county council is being far too slow in acting on the matter, and there is talk of the planning application for the road being called in. I call on my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that if that scheme takes place, work will be extremely fast, since it would be very unfair to my constituents to have construction traffic for the channel tunnel rail link passing through the town.
On balance, I welcome the Bill, because it means improved transport and thousands more jobs for my constituency. However, I ask the House and particularly the other place not to lose sight of the environmental impact on Kent, which badly affects my constituency. There are still problems that need to be addressed.

Mr. Brooke: The length of time that the Bill has been in gestation has been testified to by others. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) was very generous in his comments on how the Select Committee was conducted. I should like to take advantage of the presence in the Chamber of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to record one of my favourite pieces of British film comedy dialogue.
In the early stages of the "Titfield Thunderbolt", when the vicar of Titfield is confronted with the news that the line is already closed between Whitstable and Canterbury, he says:
Perhaps there were not men of sufficient faith in Canterbury.
That faith has been deployed in the passage of the Bill, to the pleasure of all of us.
As the tail light of the departing Bill moves into the penumbra towards the other House, I should like to recount briefly my involvement in the very early stages of the tunnel that gave rise to the Bill. I was a Treasury Minister and we were negotiating a treaty with France. A problem arose about what we should do, since French customs officers carry guns; if they were on the train when it entered the tunnel, they would still have the guns on them when they came out of the tunnel at this end, and British customs officers do not carry guns.
The preferred solution of myself and the officials working with me was that French customs officers should be allowed to carry guns, but if in the event of their arrival on British soil they wished to use them, they would have to apply in writing to the chief constable of Kent. I am delighted to say that the preferred solution was acceptable to both Governments who were negotiating the treaty, and I think that it is established in writ.
I hope that solutions of similar ingenuity are deployed in the face of any other difficulties that the Bill meets before it completes its journey and when it is subsequently implemented.

Sir John Stanley: I cannot resist a brief rejoinder to the comments on Report of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and other Opposition Members on the subject of delay. Their sense of history was curtailed at about 1988. I remind them that the biggest single cause


of delay was the 15 to 20-year delay occasioned by the cancellation of the previous channel tunnel project in 1975. It was fitting that the last amendment on which the Labour party chose to divide the House was a wrecking amendment that would have set the project back another three or four years.
The delay has been of huge benefit to Kent and south-east London, though possibly not to Essex. It greatly benefited my constituents because the result of the delays is a route that, environmentally and in engineering terms, is a vast improvement on the original scheme. All the key improvements were made by Ministers, often against the opposition of British Rail.
The project began back in 1989 when British Rail produced its so-called three alternative routes. That was a desperately ill-conceived scheme in engineering terms and catastrophic environmentally. It resulted in tens of thousands of people suffering blight needlessly. Successive ministerial interventions brought about this much better scheme.
My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Parkinson was responsible for scrubbing the awful route 3 through the heart of Kent—some of the most beautiful countryside in the county and, I believe, the whole country. It was a devastating proposal. We in that part of Kent will always be indebted to him for taking steps to dispose of that route.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) also decided to say no to the route that British Rail then preferred and chose instead the private sector alternative brought forward by Ove Arup. It is poetic justice that it is a small shareholder in London and Continental because its scheme, devised off its own bat, provides the basis of the present one.
My constituency owes an enormous debt to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). When he was Secretary of State for Transport, he listened closely to the representations that I and others in the Medway gap area of my constituency made and decided to put the line past the north downs and across the Medway gap in tunnel instead of, as previously intended, overland. As a result, we have what some of my constituents are kind enough to refer to as the Stanley tunnel. On 1994 prices, I fear that it added another £70 million to the cost of the scheme, but my constituents in Aylesford, Eccles, Burham and Wouldham are eternally grateful for the Government's good decision to put that section of the route in tunnel.
Having said that, it may sound carping to end with a limited but important note of criticism about one matter. I make no apology for that because I have a small handful of constituents, six home owners, who are now above the line of the so-called Stanley tunnel on the top of Bluebell hill, whose treatment has been totally indefensible. At the beginning of 1994 a letter from Union Railways dropped through their letter boxes. It was a formal, Dear Sir/Madam letter headed, "Announcement by Government on Channel Tunnel Rail Link". I will read out its first three sentences. I hope that hon. Members will consider the implications for the saleability of their homes, had they received it. It states:
I am writing to let you know that the Secretary of State for Transport has announced the Government's decision on the route to be safeguarded for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. This has been developed by Union Railways for the Department of Transport.

The route selected is proposed to be in tunnel at this point and may affect the subsoil to the property described above.
In each of the six cases, the property described above was the address of my constituent's home. All hon. Members will reach the conclusion that if such a letter had descended on their doormats, it would have had a devastating affect on their ability to sell their houses. That group is wholly blighted. I must tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that it is morally unacceptable that they should be left in that position. The basis for buying them out is entirely compatible with the three compensation criteria that my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads read out in response to the amendment moved on Report by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe).
The letter is specific, directly relates the event to the channel tunnel rail link and refers precisely to the fact that the subsoil of those properties may be affected. Critically, it cannot be chucked away. It cannot be stuck in the bottom of a drawer, torn up—that would be inadvisable—or given to the dog to chew. It is a legally significant letter. A vendor of a property who received such a letter and failed to disclose it to a prospective purchaser could face a substantial damages suit. The letter has to be disclosed. It is a killer letter for valuations and it has wholly blighted the homes of that small group of my constituents.
On Report we discussed amendments on compensation. That will take a considerable length of time. I am glad to have the Minister's assurance that any changes will be made retrospective in respect of this project. New legislation is not necessary to deal with this problem. It can be dealt with immediately under existing legislation. The ambit of the existing discretionary purchase powers available to Union Railways enables it to be dealt with.
As my last offering, at the final stage of the Bill, I once again urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that people who received the letter saying that the project may affect the subsoil of their properties deserve—indeed, rightfully demand—that the discretionary purchase scheme should be extended to enable them to sell their houses to Union Railways. That request is wholly justifiable and equitable. If necessary, I urge my right hon. Friend to use his powers of direction to direct Union Railways to ensure that the discretionary purchase scheme is extended to cover the purchase of the houses blighted by the letter.

Mr. Rowe: I owe the channel tunnel rail link a great debt of gratitude. Without it, probably nobody in my constituency would know who I was. I am sure that every hon. Member has had the experience of being told, "I saw you on television, but I have no idea what you were talking about." But when people see me on television they always know what I am talking about, because it is always the channel tunnel rail link. I do not quite know what I shall do when the Bill has gone to the House of Lords.
I pay a big tribute to the people along the line who have given up hours and hours of their time, spent large sums of their own private money and worked enormously hard, not only for their own benefit but for that of their friends and neighbours along the route. At least two of the people in my constituency who took a tremendous interest in the subject have died—John Castle, who became a real expert


on freight, and contributed substantially to the development of some of the thinking both in the Department and outside, and Professor Bob Bottle, whose contributions on the subject of noise were much respected.
Lamentably, at the beginning of the project British Rail treated local people with the most profound contempt. But since Union Railways took over, that attitude has changed. I believe that John Armit, Bernard Gambrill and others, who have treated my constituents with courtesy, have discovered little by little that those people had a considerable contribution to make to the development of the project. Sometimes we tend to take far too lightly the wealth of knowledge, experience and sheer hard work that volunteers put into such operations.
I must add three short comments about my anxieties. I am still deeply anxious lest, despite the Select Committee, the private consortium should seek to cut corners in the provision of protection and the like. There is still a worrying lack of detail in many of the drawings. Fully detailed design drawings have not yet been produced, and in such things all sorts of devilment may lurk. So I want to be assured again that Union Railways really will be held to the protections that we have gained so far.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed) cannot be with us tonight—I believe that he is representing the United Kingdom at the Council of Europe—but he asked me to associate his name with my statement that we need proper protections, bunds and noise barriers.
Some of the effects of noise are hard to predict. For example, the Department covered the newly extended M20 with a concrete surface, and the noise has now been admitted to be horrendous, despite the fact that when measured technically it does not reach a critical level. When one hears it, that noise makes a huge difference. In villages such as Harrietsham, in my constituency, which will be sandwiched between the channel tunnel rail link, the new M20 and the old A20, all in one tiny gap, there is a great need for proper protection. I much regret the fact that the Boxley long tunnel was not accepted by the Select Committee, and I hope that the Select Committee in the House of Lords will investigate the idea effectively.
I should also like to be assured that the speed for which the line is designed will not change once it has been determined. I have heard that the speed at which the trains should run has already been agreed, but if a decision were taken later to run trains at 20 or 30 mph faster, we should see the absurdity of an enormous bund of earth on which trees had been planted having to be uprooted to create further protection, if that were possible. So we need an assurance at the beginning that the speed for which the line is designed will not change sharply after the initial protection has been put in place.
The National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association say clearly, and I agree with them, that the power to take and occupy land for the construction of the CTRL should be restricted to the absolute minimum. We want to keep the land out of its proper use for as short a time as possible. There should be no nonsense about the constructors hanging on to land "just in case" for years after it is needed.
Finally, I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) said. I have spoken to the chairman of the consortium, and we had hoped for an early meeting, so let us send a message from the Third Reading debate that the sooner the new consortium can meet us and talk about our problems, the better we shall all be pleased.

Mr. Allen: The Opposition unreservedly welcome the concept behind the Bill, and are pleased that the channel tunnel rail link now appears to be on the way. However, the Government have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by overrunning their 1988–89 costings from the £1 billion estimated then, when we could have had the line, to what is now projected to be about £5.4 billion. That is quite a feat, even by the Government's standards. The eight-year delay has also cost an incredible amount.
As I said, I welcome the concept. However, the light at the end of this tunnel for the Conservatives is the on-rushing train of a general election. It will thus be left to the Labour party to carry out the pledges and promises in the Bill, and we shall do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — GEC Closure (Gorton)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I am grateful, on behalf of my constituents, that Madam Speaker has selected this subject for discussion. I should like to associate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) with what I am about to say. He wished to be present for the discussion, but compelling circumstances have prevented him from being here.
East Manchester, and my constituency in particular, used to be a national centre of heavy engineering. We had many famous names in Gorton, and one can still go to the railway museum in York and see the great engines that were manufactured there. But now my constituency is an industrial graveyard, and out of 634 constituencies in Great Britain, Gorton is 30th in terms of unemployment.
We have almost double the national level of unemployment, and male unemployment, at 21.3 per cent., is more than twice the national average. In the Manchester area, we have lost 30,000 jobs in recent years, and now local unemployment is about to be increased as a result of a wanton action by GEC, which has decided to close down the Long and Crawford factory in Gorton road.
Long and Crawford manufactures switchgear. It has a high reputation. GEC bought it in 1988, and the productive efforts of the work force resulted in a profitability that meant that, by 1993, GEC had recouped the money it had paid for the company. Now, having used that company and its dedicated and skilled work force for its own convenience, and having turned my constituents and those of my hon. Friends into industrial pawns, GEC intends to close the company. The death sentence will be carried out on 16 August.
There is a work force of 234, and 127 are to be thrown on the scrap heap. The 107 remaining staff will be transferred to another site—which 107, it is not yet known. When they are transferred to the other site in Higher Openshaw, it will be at standards much inferior to those they now have, and on a much more precarious basis.
The men who will lose their jobs—the 127—are, in theory, eligible for redundancy compensation of up to £20,000. However, the maximum redundancy compensation available will be £17,000, and the median compensation will be only £8,000—and that is for men who have 25 years' service. Even the largest sum would not be of much help to men with mortgages to pay and with children to feed and clothe—particularly as there is an extremely unpromising prospect of new employment.
The closure notice that was distributed to the work force promised:
Assistance will be given to those affected in seeking alternative employment.
What good will that be in an area with such high male unemployment? One hundred and seven men will be transferred—in the inelegant language of GEC, they will be relocated. While keeping their jobs will be better than nothing, they will not keep their present pay and conditions.
A notice issued by N. F. Collins, director and general manager, said:
All 'relocated' employees will relocate on GEC ALSTHOM T and D Long and Crawford Limited contracts of employment. Terms and Conditions of Employment will remain unchanged with the exception of those employees who are covered by the payment by results (PBR) scheme.
The notice continued:
The Company proposes to remove the existing outdated PBR scheme and replace it with an improved basic rate, paid monthly, which will be more comparable with those elsewhere in the industry, thereby helping to ensure the long term viability of Long and Crawford.
The "long term viability" of Long and Crawford means that the company is shutting down the Long and Crawford factory and transferring the name and some of the work to GEC at Higher Openshaw. The scheme is outdated simply because GEC has decided to scrap it—and for no other reason. What does this mumbo-jumbo mean? It is GEC doublespeak for an ultimatum to the transferred workers.
Mr. Collins said in his notice that workers will be "invited" to agree to these changes. It means compel and force—they will have no choice. It is GEC doublespeak which means that the workers will be forced to agree to the changes.
Ending the payment by results scheme will cut the wages of the men who will be lucky enough to be transferred by some £60 a week—that is a severe pay cut. Management will buy out the scheme for a lump sum, but will not compensate workers for the loss of their bonus scheme over much more than a 12-month period—particularly as, even if transferred, they will have no guarantee of job security. They are subject to blackmail.
Another note was distributed to the work force. Under the heading "Co-operation", it stated:
The scheme is conditional on full co-operation which includes the working of such overtime as is both required and approved.
Any instance of industrial action will result in the immediate withdrawal of the scheme.
Co-operation is not a matter for agreement between the company and the work force—it is an ultimatum imposed on the work force by the management, including compulsory overtime if management so decides. The workers will have no power to defend themselves, because if they try to do so, the scheme will be scrapped.
Apprentices will not be transferred as the sub-contract work at the new site will carry no apprenticeships with it. The skilled workers of the future will not be trained at the new site. What hope does that bring for Britain's industrial future if an area of high skill is not to train young people who can succeed and continue to do the work?
I am informed that the same applies to inspection. Inspection standards are high at the present Long and Crawford site. At the new site—where the work will be sub-contract work—inspection may be little, inadequate or even non-existent. We are talking about extremely important matters, because both supply and safety are involved. Several hundred thousand switchgear units may have to be refurbished at any time.
The work force have told me that a new product is coming, and that it will presumably be manufactured at the new site. I am informed that it will be developed only for the home market, and that potential export markets in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the other Gulf oil states and South America are to be thrown away.

As for the Gorton road site, the closure notice states:
The Gorton Road site will be decommissioned and sold for industrial development which should lead to the creation of some alternative jobs for the area.

Again, that is GEC doublespeak. GEC has every intention of selling off the site and realising what money it can from getting rid of it—that is part of a classic asset-stripping operation.
Talk of creating alternative jobs is meaningless at best and hypocritical at worst. Just what are these alternative jobs going to be in an area with such high unemployment? I have asked GEC this, and it has been unable to give me any information that is meaningful in any way. If a powerful combine such as GEC is destroying jobs, who will be able to come along and create the new jobs that it says are possible?
I raised this matter at Question Time last week, and the President of the Board of Trade responded to my question. With respect, the President of the Board of Trade knew nothing of the matter—I do not criticise him for that, because I raised this matter as a supplementary question. However, in response to my question, the President of the Board of Trade immediately launched into a panegyric of praise for GEC. In Manchester, we know GEC all too well—we know it as a ruthless employer and as a company that has made a practice of shutting factories, sacking men and making money out of methodical asset-stripping.
Long and Crawford is not the first closure that GEC has inflicted on people in the area, but I hope that it will be the last—but with GEC's record, one cannot be sure. From my encounters with the people at the very top of GEC, I know them as arrogant and uncaring. GEC is run on the basis of a quick turnover and fast profits at the expense of its workers and products. Unlike other companies that I can think of, the record of GEC is a telling explanation of the industrial decline of this country and the transformation of much of Manchester from a centre of excellence and innovation into its present state, with all too many closed factories, and all too many derelict sites.
Manchester is a city of innovation and energy. Our people create things; we are the home of the computer; we have done things in Manchester that the rest of the country should envy. Nevertheless, because of the actions of GEC and companies like it, we have high unemployment, and the skills that my constituents would be only too happy to deploy are not used.
What hope is there for these men when the Confederation of British Industry and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce have said that there are signs that firms expect to shed labour in the coming months? Despite the response by the President of the Board of Trade last week—which I realise was an off-the-cuff response—I hope that the Minister of State who will reply to the debate will offer some hope to my constituents.
We need not sympathy—we will provide our own sympathy in Manchester—but practical action, which we in Manchester would be happy to provide for ourselves if we had the opportunity to do so. My constituents, the people of Manchester, are proud, skilled and dedicated men, whose wish is to work for their country. They ask the Government to work for them so that they can work

for their country. As their voice in the House of Commons, I ask the Government to take action for them, for the city of Manchester and for Britain.

The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on obtaining this Adjournment debate, with its obvious importance for his constituency and the surrounding area.
Of course it is unfortunate for Gorton and the surrounding area that GEC Alsthom has decided to transfer its work from its Long and Crawford site in Gorton to Openshaw, but that does not mean that that was the wrong decision, or avoidable. From time to time, companies must make tough decisions of that type to ensure that they have a sound long-term future. Even in a healthy economy, jobs will inevitably be lost. The important thing is that more jobs are created to replace them.
As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, GEC Alsthom has been hit by a drop in demand for its switchgear. Changes from oil to gas-based products and changes in technology that are vital to the company's international trading position have meant that only half as many people as previously are needed to produce its gas-insulated switchgear. As the right hon. Gentleman observed, the company has therefore decided that, in its judgment, relocating to another of its sites in Openshaw can help it to remain, in the overall sense, competitive.
It would be commercial suicide to keep on high numbers of staff in industries where automation had reduced the demand for labour, and it would put businesses at the mercy of overseas competitors. Where efficiency savings from merging two parts of a company might be made, it would make no sense not to adjust staffing levels.
My contention is that it is not for Government to seek to interfere with or second-guess commercial decisions of the type that have been described. If we tried in any way to force companies to keep unprofitable sites open, we would add intolerable burdens to their businesses and risk destroying jobs in the long term, as firms went out of business or chose to relocate overseas.
However, having said that, and in reply to one of the questions that the right hon. Gentleman reasonably asked, agencies and services exist to help those who become redundant as a result of actions such as have been taken on this occasion, to try to ensure that everyone involved has the best chance of a speedy return to work. For example, the Employment Service and Manchester training and enterprise council have contacted GEC Alsthom to offer help.
I am told that the company has appointed a firm of employment consultants to advise its workers on employment issues, and has pledged to do everything possible to support those who will lose their jobs in the reorganisation. Following discussions with the training and enterprise council, the affected workers will be given immediate access to the training for work programme and other adult training programmes.
As part of that package, Manchester TEC also offers training grants to employers who are prepared to recruit and train those who have suffered from redundancies. The


TEC has been working with the Trafford Park development corporation to help local firms there recruit and upskill engineering workers to meet their current and anticipated labour needs.
For those affected by a decision of the type that we are discussing, the prospects are not necessarily as gloomy as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to suggest. We know that most spells of unemployment tend to be short. Of people who become unemployed, about half leave unemployment within three months, two thirds within six months and 80 per cent, within a year. If we add to that help of the type that I have described—from the Employment Service and its programmes, or the training and enterprise council, or the actions that I am told that the company is taking—there is good reason to believe that the people affected by such a decision can expect, directly or after retraining or other support, to find other work in the foreseeable future.
I do not want in any sense to underestimate, or not to have regard to, the pain and problems that are caused to those affected and their families. That, I fear, is a common experience for those who lose their jobs, but I believe that it is much better to look on the more positive side of these matters and have regard to the measures that can be taken to help them.
The overall picture in the Greater Manchester area is certainly more positive than that. To paraphrase, the right hon. Gentleman asked, "What hope is there for people who are thus affected in Gorton?" I wish to mention some examples, which are by no means a complete list.
Nynex is creating 4, 500 jobs with a £1.1 billion investment in the north-west as a whole. Four hundred and twenty-five jobs are being created in Stockport with the Co-operative bank's new telephone banking centre. Three hundred jobs are being created in Warn with Omega Engineering. Six thousand short and long-term jobs are coming in the new £127 million Lowry centre in Salford.
There will be two thousand jobs from a new concert hall next to the G-Mex centre, 1,000 new jobs in Cheadle with John Lewis and Sainsbury's, and 6,000 jobs in the new Trafford shopping centre. I could add to those the many thousands of jobs and inward investment that will result from Manchester hosting the 2002 Commonwealth games.
The right hon. Gentleman is probably thinking, "But what relevance do these have to the people who have been affected at GEC Alsthom?" In the world we face today, as I said earlier, jobs may be lost and others may be created, and sometimes that will require people to be prepared to retrain or reskill or alter their career direction to take up opportunities like those that I have mentioned, which may at first glance not be immediately relevant to the people who have lost their jobs and to the skills that they have acquired.
There is a wider and general recognition that this is likely to be the pattern of the future; that people, perhaps regrettably, can no longer expect to do the same or a similar job throughout their working lives; that we must find ways to help people, by education, training, and support of different kinds, to make the career changes that may be necessary to give them better prospects for the future. Increasingly, that must be understood and accepted.
We and our agencies want to do everything possible to help. Training programmes such as the training for work programme, work trials, jobfinders grants—at least for the long-term unemployed—and various job-finding measures that we have on offer, are the sort of things that may come to the rescue of those who find themselves out of work for a longer period.
The new jobs that are coming along may not be the same as the old ones, and may not be in exactly the same location—they may not even require the same skills—but, with some flexibility and a preparedness to contemplate career changes and new directions, there is real hope for the people who have been affected by the changes that the right hon. Gentleman has described, and for others of his constituents. They should be prepared to consider changes in employment or perhaps be willing to travel some distance to work elsewhere.
The lessons of other large-scale engineering redundancies in the Greater Manchester area suggest that those wishing to remain in engineering are often successful in finding work within a few weeks or months of being made redundant. As the right hon. Gentleman said, more than 100 of the 236 employees of Long and Crawford will be transferred to Openshaw. There is also a distinct possibility that some of the staff who have been served with redundancy notices may be redeployed elsewhere within the group.
I cannot agree with many of the right hon. Gentleman's comments about GEC. I believe that we must exercise some good will on such occasions. Government agencies and the company must be willing to work together to try to maximise opportunities for the people involved and affected. By adopting a positive outlook and by working together co-operatively, we can help those who are affected by difficult decisions such as this.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that there is real hope for his constituents. The Government are always prepared to work with the company and with local authorities to try to maximise the opportunities available to those affected by redundancy. I am sure that Government agencies also will be prepared to listen and to offer positive assistance. Therefore, I hope that he will take from this brief debate a more hopeful and positive outlook. He may be assured that the Government, their agencies and all those involved will continue to work positively to assist his constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Nine o'clock.